IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-10700
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MELVIN GLEN NEAL, also known as Glen Neal,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:87-CR-82-Y
USDC No. 4:95-CV-405-Y
--------------------
December 19, 2000
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Melvin Glen Neal appeals from the denial of his motion
for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Neal’s motion to withdraw
the appellate brief he filed in 1998 before we stayed proceedings
in his case is GRANTED.
Neal contends that the district court erred by denying
his § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing and by denying his
two motions to proceed pro se and his retained attorney’s motion to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-10700
- 2 -
withdraw, motions that were submitted after the retained attorney
failed to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel
despite our remand so that Neal’s § 2255 motion could be amended to
add such a claim. Neal’s underlying substantive contentions are
that the Government knowingly used perjured testimony; that the
Government withheld exculpatory evidence; and that trial counsel
was ineffective because he failed to preserve for appellate review
the substance of the testimony of two witnesses by alleging the
substance of that testimony in the district court.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying Neal’s § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing.
United States v. Bartholemew, 974 F.2d 39, 41 (5th Cir. 1992).
Neal’s contentions that the Government knowingly used perjured
testimony are based solely on allegedly contradictory testimony at
trial or on an alleged prior inconsistent statement by one witness
who testified at trial. Contradictory testimony does not prove
perjury. Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 531 (5th Cir. 1990).
Neal’s allegation that one witness gave a prior inconsistent
statement is unsupported by any specific allegations regarding the
contents of the statement; his allegation is conclusional and does
not give rise to any constitutional issue. United States v. Jones,
614 F.2d 80, 81 (5th Cir. 1980).
The denial of Neal’s motions to proceed pro se and counsel’s
motion to withdraw from representation of Neal in the § 2255
proceedings was not an abuse of discretion. Juelich v. United
States, 342 F.2d 29, 32-33 (5th Cir. 1965). Neal could have
identified in his motions to proceed pro se the ineffective-
No. 97-10700
- 3 -
assistance claim he wished to pursue, even if he could not flesh it
out in any detail. He did not do so. Counsel’s reluctance to make
a specific allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel may have
been motivated by his evaluation of the claim as being meritless,
even though our remand allowed an amendment.
AFFIRMED.
United States v. Neal
Combined Opinion