IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-10428
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GEORGE D. FARQUHAR, III,
Defendant-Appellant.
- ---------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:97-CR-64-X & 3:97-CR-35
- ---------
January 19, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George Farquhar appeals his convictions for failure to appear
at sentencing hearings, 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1). He contends that the
district court erred in denying his motion for a pre-sentence study
or mental examination to determine his mental competency. He also
contends, in the event that this court finds that the district
court did not err in denying his motion, that his counsel’s failure
to investigate, develop, and present evidence relevant to his
motion for a pre-sentence study or mental examination denied him
effective assistance of counsel.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published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.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Farquhar’s motion for a pre-sentence
study or mental examination under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3006A, 3552(b) and
(c), 4241(a), and 4244 because Farquhar failed to make the requisite showing of
r a o a l c u e t b l e e t a h w s i c m e e t t s a d t i l See United States v. Will a s
esnbe as o eiv ht e a noptn o tn ra. im,
998 F.2d 258, 264-67 (5th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Farquhar’s ineffective assistance of counsel
claim cannot be litigated on direct appeal because he did not adequately raise it in the district
court. United States v. Gibson, 55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v.
Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). Farquhar may raise his
ineffective assistance of counsel in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; if
he requires counsel to assist in the preparation of the § 2255
motion, Farquhar may make that request to the district court.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2