IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30232
Summary Calendar
MORRIS PRICE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(98-CV-3560-D)
--------------------
November 17, 1999
Before POLITZ, WIENER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner-Appellant Morris Price, Louisiana prisoner #73632,
appeals from the denial of his application for federal habeas
corpus relief. Price contends that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel, arguing that counsel failed to obtain
disclosure of the CI’s identity and to pursue an entrapment
defense; and that counsel’s cumulative errors violated his
constitutional rights. Price also contends that, by failing to
allow counsel adequate time to prepare for trial, the district
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
court denied him effective assistance of counsel and, at the same
time, violated the Due Process Clause.
The district court did not issue a certificate of
appealability (COA) on Price’s due process issue, and he does not
seek a COA on that issue from us. We therefore lack jurisdiction
to consider Price’s due process contention. Whitehead v. Johnson,
157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998).
Price has failed to show that counsel was deficient, see
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), or that the
state trial court deprived him of effective assistance of counsel.
First, the state-court record reflects that no motion for a
continuance was made to allow newly retained counsel additional
time to prepare for trial. The district court need not have
granted a continuance on its own motion under the circumstances of
Price’s case. See Gandy v. Alabama, 569 F.2d 1318, 1323 (5th Cir.
1978). Second, the state-court record indicates that counsel in
fact was aware of the identity of the confidential informant and
that the state trial court ordered the cognizant police agency to
comply with counsel’s request for information regarding the
confidential informant’s reliability. Information about the
confidential informant’s alleged propensity to set up drug deals to
further his own drug habit might have been relevant to an
entrapment defense, but was not relevant to Price’s defense that he
was not involved at all in the drug transaction that led to his
conviction. Indeed, an entrapment defense would have been
2
inconsistent with Price’s denial of involvement, which he repeats
to us.
AFFIRMED.
3