IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20958
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PETER EZEKEKE, also known as Peter O. Ezekeke,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-95-CV-5693
- - - - - - - - - -
February 11, 1998
Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Peter Ezekeke appeals the magistrate judge’s denial of his
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 wherein he challenged his
conviction for collecting credit extensions by extortionate
means. He argues that the magistrate judge erred by denying
without a hearing his claims that Government knowingly used
perjured testimony to secure his conviction and that his
appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the
district court’s imposition of a $10,000 fine.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-20958
-2-
As noted by the magistrate judge, Ezekeke’s assertions of
inconsistent testimony are insufficient to establish the knowing
use of perjurious testimony. See Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524,
531 (5th Cir. 1990). We do not reach the merit’s of Ezekeke’s
challenge to his counsel’s failure to appeal the imposition of
the $10,000 fine, as it lies outside the scope of § 2255. See
United States v. Gaudet, 81 F.3d 585, 592 (5th Cir. 1996).
Because the record is sufficient to show conclusively that
Ezekeke is entitled to no relief, an evidentiary hearing was
unnecessary. See United States v. Bartholomew, 974 F.2d 39, 41
(5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.