IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-50749
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CULLEN REED HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-96-CV-93; W-91-CR-43-2
--------------------
September 17, 1999
Before JONES, DUHÉ, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Cullen Reed Harris appeals the district court’s denial of his
consolidated 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion.
Harris argues that 1) his counsel (both trial and appellate) were
ineffective for not fully exploring the issue of collusion between
state and federal authorities, and 2) the district court erred in
determining that the d,l-methamphetamine he possessed was a single
substance and that the entire weight was therefore attributable to
Harris for sentencing purposes.2
1
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
2
We note that the third issue raised Harris’ brief has
previously been resolved.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the
parties and find no error in the district court’s denial of Harris’
§ 2255 claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689-94 (1984); Bridge v. Lynaugh, 838
F.2d 770, 773 (5th Cir. 1988). Furthermore, because § 3582(c)(2)
contemplates sentence reductions based upon retroactive changes to
the Sentencing Guidelines, we find that Harris’§ 3582(c)(2)
argument is not cognizable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Additionally, evidence conclusively established that wastewater was
not included in the calculation of the weight of methamphetamine
used for sentencing purposes.
AFFIRMED.