United States v. Carter

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-11062 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOE HENRY CARTER, JR., Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CV-812-A - - - - - - - - - - September 14, 1998 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Joe Henry Carter, Jr., federal prisoner #20402-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion after remand on the issue whether Carter was denied ineffective assistance of counsel. Carter has made no relevant appellate argument on his first eight claims. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(6) requires that the appellant's argument contain the reasons why he deserves the requested relief, together with citation to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 97-11062 -2- 1993) (stating same as to predecessor of Rule 28(a)(6)). Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596 (1972), we nevertheless require arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225. Claims not adequately argued in the body of the brief are deemed abandoned on the appeal. See id. at 224-25. In regard to his ninth claim, Carter has failed to demonstrate that counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate or communicate the possibility of a plea agreement. See Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369, 113 S. Ct. 838, 842 (1993); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689-94, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2065-68 (1984). The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold a hearing. See United States v. Bartholomew, 974 F.2d 39, 41-42 (5th Cir. 1992) AFFIRMED.