IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50774
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM RICH,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-93-CA-263
- - - - - - - - - -
December 23, 1997
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
William Rich appeals the denial of his motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct sentence brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Rich
contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call
two witnesses to testify at trial. Rich has not shown that there
is a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would
have been different if these witnesses had testified and,
therefore, has not shown that his trial counsel rendered
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
ineffective assistance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 694, 697 (1984).
Rich also contends that his counsel on direct appeal was
ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the
corroboration of Rich’s incriminatory statement. Rich maintains
that there was no independent evidence to corroborate his signed
statement that he received more than $10,000 in illegal drug
proceeds. We find that the Government introduced sufficient
independent evidence to bolster parts of Rich’s statement and to
establish the statement’s trustworthiness. See United States v.
Abigando, 439 F.2d 827, 833 (5th Cir. 1971). The corroborative
evidence did not have to show that Rich received more than $10,000.
This element could be proved by Rich’s statement alone. See United
States v. Micieli, 594 F.2d 102, 107-09 (5th Cir. 1979); Abigando,
439 F.2d at 831-33. Rich has not shown that the outcome of his
appeal would have been different if his appellate counsel had
raised this issue and, therefore, has not shown that his appellate
counsel rendered ineffective assistance. See McCoy v. Lynaugh, 874
F.2d 954, 962-63 (5th Cir. 1989).
AFFIRMED.