IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-10266
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NATIVIDAD SILVA, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:95-CV-131-G
- - - - - - - - - -
January 6, 1998
Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Natividad Silva, Jr., appeals the district court’s denial of
his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel; that the Government unlawfully interfered
with his ability to interview witnesses; that Counts 4 and 6 of
the indictment were multiplicitous; that the indictment was
insufficient to put him on notice of the true nature of the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 97-10266
-2-
offense charged in Count 6; and that the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction under Count 6.
Silva’s ineffective-assistance claims are without merit. He
contends that counsel was ineffective in failing to provide the
sentencing court with advance notice of Silva’s request for an
evidentiary hearing. Because counsel was nevertheless permitted
to present evidence on Silva’s behalf at sentencing, Silva has
failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the alleged
deficiency, and his claim fails. Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
Silva’s remaining ineffective-assistance claims, raised for
the first time on this appeal, are subject at most to plain-error
review. See United States v. McPhail, 112 F.3d 197, 199 (5th
Cir. 1997). All of his contentions involve factual questions
which this court will not address for the first time on appeal
and which, by their nature, do not rise to the level of obvious
error. See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F3d 21, 23 (5th
Cir. 1995).
Silva’s contention that the Government unlawfully interfered
with his ability to interview witnesses is likewise unavailing.
Even if it is assumed that his claim is a constitutional one so
as to be cognizable in a § 2255 motion, Silva makes no connection
between the claim and the voluntary nature of his guilty plea.
Inasmuch as he fails to do so, the claim is waived by his guilty
plea. See Taylor v. Whitley, 933 F.2d 325, 327 (5th Cir. 1991).
No. 97-10266
-3-
Silva’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge is also waived
by his guilty plea. See United States v. Broome, 628 F.2d 403,
405 (5th Cir. 1980); see also Kelley v. Alabama, 636 F.2d 1082,
1083-84 (5th Cir. 1981). Silva’s challenges to the indictment
are procedurally barred. United States v. Shaid, 937 F.3d 228,
232 (5th Cir. 1991)(en banc). Accordingly, the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED.