UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-10571
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIO MENDEZ, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:96-CV-108-A)
_________________________________________________________________
June 9, 1999
Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mario Mendez, Jr., federal prisoner # 24717-077, appeals the
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because Mendez filed his
motion prior to the 24 April 1996 effective date of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, he is not required
to obtain a certificate of appealability. See United States v.
Carter, 117 F.3d 262, 264 (5th Cir. 1997).
Mendez contends that his trial counsel was ineffective: (1)
in failing to object to the denial of an offense-level reduction
for being a minimal or minor participant; (2) in not showing a
violation of the concurrent-sentence doctrine; (3) in not obtaining
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
recusal of the district judge; (4) in not objecting to an alleged
violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); and (5) in not
objecting to a sentence enhancement for possession of a firearm.
We have reviewed the record and Mendez’s brief, and we AFFIRM
the denial of § 2255 relief for essentially the reasons given by
the district court. United States v. Mendez, No. 4:96-CV-108-A
(N.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 1996) (unpublished).
The additional claimed bases for ineffective assistance,
raised for the first time in Mendez’s reply brief, are not properly
before this court and are not considered. E.g., United States v.
Jackson, 50 F.3d 1335, 1340 n.7 (5th Cir. 1995) (court will not
consider issues raised for first time in reply brief).
AFFIRMED
- 2 -