IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-10122
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VINCENT ROCHEL LEWIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:94-CV-184
- - - - - - - - - -
August 4, 1998
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Federal prisoner Vincent Rochel Lewis, no. 60694-079,
appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.
Lewis contends that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel when his attorney failed to file an appeal of his
sentence. Lewis also contends that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to object to the
district court’s use of incriminating information in violation 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 97-10122
-2-
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8 to calculate Lewis’ sentence. The magistrate
judge found credible counsel’s testimony at an evidentiary
hearing that Lewis never requested an appeal. See United States
v. Nixon, 881 F.2d 1305, 1310 (5th Cir. 1989). Also, because the
Government never made any agreement such that § 1B1.8 would apply
to Lewis’ case, any objection on that ground would have been
meritless. See Clark v. Collins, 19 F.3d 959, 966 (5th Cir.
1994). Lewis cannot demonstrate that his attorney rendered
deficient performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687 (1984).
To the extent that Lewis raises an independent issue that
the district court erred by using information prohibited by
§ 1B1.8 to calculate his sentence, it is not a constitutional
issue cognizable under § 2255. See United States v. Segler, 37
F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 1994). Even if the issue was
cognizable, it is without merit.
Lewis does not argue on appeal his issues: 1) that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea
bargaining: 2) that the trial court committed errors by failing
to inform him of the nature of the charges and the core concerns
of pleading guilty: 3) that the trial court erred by not advising
Lewis of the contents of the plea agreement; and 4) that the
sentencing court violated several other sentencing guidelines
when sentencing him. Because Lewis failed to argue these issues,
they are considered abandoned. See United States v. Madkins, 14
No. 97-10122
-3-
F.3d 277, 279 n.3 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.