IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-20451
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GODFREY OKE OBIOZOR, a/k/a
Godfrey Oke Obizar,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-95-CV-5670
_________________________________________________________________
December 11, 1996
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Godfrey Oke Obiozor appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Obiozor argues that the
government breached the plea agreement; that counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to the PSR, failing to move to
withdraw Obiozor’s plea on the basis of the alleged breach of the
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
agreement and failing to appeal the issues of the breached plea
agreement, the denial of acceptance of responsibility, and
Obiozor’s sentence as a supervisor or manager; and that his
sentence is erroneous under the Sentencing Guidelines. He also
argues that the district court erred by dismissing his petition
without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. An evidentiary hearing was not necessary
to resolve Obiozor’s claims. United States v. Bartholomew, 974
F.2d 39, 41 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we AFFIRM for the
reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.
Obiozor, No. CR-H-91-193 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 1996).
This court has not yet determined whether a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) is required under the circumstances of this
appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. To the extent that a COA is
required, we construe Obiozor’s notice of appeal as an application
for a COA and DENY the motion.
A F F I R M E D.
-2-