IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 97-11315
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN L. SULLIVAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:96-CV-234-H (3:92-CR-402-H)
_________________________________________________________________
July 17, 1998
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John L. Sullivan, federal prisoner # 23457-077, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Sullivan
argues that the district court erred in failing to conduct an
evidentiary hearing to develop the factual issues raised with
respect to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and that
the district court erred in granting the government’s motion to
dismiss without ruling on his claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel. He argues that his claims of ineffective assistance of
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
counsel are cognizable in this § 2255 proceeding. He argues that
the district court erred in focusing on his claim of improper
application of the sentencing guidelines as the only issue. He
argues that he should have received concurrent sentences, and he
argues that if counsel had raised the issue in the district court,
his sentence would have been different.
Sullivan cannot show prejudice due to his counsel’s failure to
raise the issue of concurrent sentencing with the sentencing court.
United States v. Torrez, 40 F.3d 84, 88 n.2 (5th Cir. 1994); United
States v. McCarthy, 77 F.3d 522 (1st Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117
S.Ct. 771 (1997). Sullivan does not brief his issues relating to
acceptance of responsibility on appeal, and so these issues are
considered abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th
Cir. 1993).
A F F I R M E D.
2