IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-60300
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CLAUDE H. ANDREWS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:95-CV-164-GR
- - - - - - - - - -
February 6, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Claude H. Andrews (#02767-043) appeals the denial of his
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Andrews contends that his
attorney rendered ineffective assistance in failing to conduct an
adequate investigation and in failing to call certain witnesses
in his case in chief and on rebuttal. We have carefully reviewed
the record and the arguments of the parties and hold that Andrews
has failed to show that his attorney’s representation was
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 96-60300
- 2 -
professionally unreasonable and that he was prejudiced. See
Alexander v. McCotter, 775 F.2d 595, 602 (5th Cir. 1985).
Andrews contended in the district court that his attorney
rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to
prejudicial comments by the prosecutor. Andrews has waived this
issue by failing to brief it on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Andrews argues in his reply brief that the district court
erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. This court does
not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief.
See United States v. Prince, 868 F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 493 U.S. 932 (1989).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.