IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50207
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSÉ LEON GONZALEZ-LONGORIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-95-CA-64
- - - - - - - - - -
January 16, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
José Leon Gonzalez-Longoria appeals from the district
court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He argues that
he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his
attorney failed to investigate and “suppress” the “true chain of
custody” of the wiretap tapes and transcripts, improperly induced
Gonzalez-Longoria to waive his right to a jury trial, failed to
object to the introduction of the wiretap tapes and transcripts
as evidence, and improperly waived Gonzalez-Longoria’s PSR; that
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-50207
-2-
he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because
his attorney failed to raise the tainted-evidence issue on direct
appeal; that his due process rights were violated by the
introduction of the allegedly altered wiretap tapes and
transcripts; that his due process rights were violated by the
civil forfeiture proceeding; and that the district court erred by
failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Although the Government
argues that Gonzalez-Longoria’s claims of ineffective assistance
of trial counsel are not properly before this court, we have
reviewed those claims as well because they were considered by the
district court in its denial of Gonzalez-Longoria’s postjudgment
motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the judgment is
AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons stated by the magistrate
judge and adopted by the district court in its denial of
Gonzalez-Longoria’s § 2255 motion, and for the reasons stated by
the district court in its denial of Gonzalez-Longoria’s
postjudgment motion for reconsideration. See Gonzalez-Longoria
v. United States of America, No. SA-92-CR-65 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 13,
1996); Gonzalez-Longoria v. United States of America, No. SA-92-
CR-65 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 1997).
AFFIRMED.