IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-51042
Summary Calendar
SAMUEL LEE CURRY, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF TEXAS; GARY L. JOHNSON,
DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondents-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-97-CV-106
- - - - - - - - - -
August 13, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Samuel Curry (“Curry”), Texas state prisoner # 706332, has
appealed the denial of his petition for federal habeas relief.
He argues that the district court erred in denying review of his
claim, that his plea was involuntary and the result of
ineffective assistance of counsel because his state and federal
sentences did not run concurrently as promised in his state plea
agreement, since he procedurally defaulted it in state court.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-51042
-2-
Curry also argues that the district court erred in denying his
claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because
his attorney failed to file timely pre-trial motions and to
prepare adequately for trial by properly investigating his case
and interviewing witnesses. Curry has recently filed motions for
a transcript and to file supplemental brief.
Curry’s motions are denied. He has not demonstrated why the
transcript of the hearing is necessary given that he had access
to the audiotapes of the hearing.
The district court correctly denied federal habeas review to
Curry’s concurrent sentences claim because he defaulted the claim
in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state
procedural rule and was not able to demonstrate actual prejudice
as a result of the alleged violation of federal law. See Coleman
v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). The district court also
correctly denied his other ineffective assistance of counsel
claims because he failed to show prejudice. See Hill v.
Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). The judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.