IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 98-40158 and
98-40275
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTONIO L. ABRON,
Defendant-Appellant,
****************************************************************
ANTONIO L. ABRON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC Nos. 9:97-CV-157 and
9:97-CV-428
- - - - - - - - - -
December 15, 1998
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Nos. 98-40158 and
98-40275
-2-
Antonio L. Abron, federal prisoner # 08715-035, appeals from
the district court’s denial of his motion for leave to extend
time to file original 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct sentence (No. 98-40158) and the district
court’s denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 construed as motion to vacate,
set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (No.
98-40275). He argues in both appeals that the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) has infringed upon
his right to petition the government, his counsel was
ineffective, and the district court abused its discretion in
enhancing his sentence for obstruction of justice. We sua sponte
consolidate the appeals pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(b).
Abron offers no argument in his brief to challenge the
district court’s denial of his motion for an extension of time to
file his § 2255 motion. Issues which are not briefed are waived.
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987). According, the appeal in No. 98-40158 is
DISMISSED.
Because Abron filed the § 2255 motion after April 24, 1996,
the effective date of the AEDPA, he must obtain a certificate of
appealability (COA), before proceeding with this appeal. Green
v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (5th Cir. 1997). A COA may be
issued only if Abron has made a “substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When
the issue is nonconstitutional, like the limitations question in
this case, this court applies a two-step analysis to determine
whether to issue a COA. First, the court determines whether the
Nos. 98-40158 and
98-40275
-3-
movant has made a credible showing of error. Only if that
question is answered in the affirmative will the court consider
whether the movant’s underlying claim satisfies the COA standard.
Murphy v. Johnson, 110 F.3d 10, 11 (5th Cir. 1997) (28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 case).
Abron has not made a credible showing that the district
court erred in dismissing his § 2255 motion. His request for COA
to proceed in No. 98-40275 is DENIED.
Abron’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
is DENIED.
No. 98-40158 DISMISSED; No. 98-40275 COA DENIED; IFP DENIED.