IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-60108
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DONNELL SHORTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC Nos. 3:98-CV-36-1-S
3:95-CR-128-S
--------------------
March 15, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donnell Shorter appeals the district court’s denial of his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Shorter renews only his claims that counsel
was ineffective in failing to investigate and in failing to pursue
his direct appeal; he has waived the other claims certified in the
district court’s certificate of appealability by failing to brief
them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Shorter raises the following arguments for the first time on
appeal: 1) counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-60108
-2-
amount of drugs attributed to him for sentencing purposes; 2)
counsel was ineffective because he was unfamiliar with the charge
Shorter faced, rendering the guilty plea involuntary; 3) the
Government failed to prove that his offense involved crack rather
than powder cocaine; 4) the Sentencing Reform Act is
unconstitutional; 5) the trial court failed to insure that he
understood the nature of the charges against him; and 6) the
Government breached the plea agreement. This court will not
consider these newly raised claims. See United States v.
Cervantes, 132 F.3d 1106, 1109 (5th Cir. 1998).
Shorter’s claim that counsel failed to investigate the facts
of his case or a possible defense fails because he has not alleged
with specificity what counsel’s investigation would have revealed
and has not established that, but for counsel’s error, he would not
have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. See
Armstead v. Scott, 37 F.3d 202, 206, 209 (5th Cir. 1994). To the
extent that Shorter urges that counsel denied him the right to
appeal because he did not file a timely notice of appeal on his
behalf, the claim fails for lack of prejudice because Shorter
received an out-of-time appeal. See United States v. Shorter, No.
97-60204 (5th Cir. Oct. 15, 1997); see also Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 697 (1984).
To the extent that Shorter urges that he was denied counsel on
appeal, the claim is factually without merit. Shorter was
represented at trial by retained counsel, but he did not retain
counsel for appeal, nor did he request the appointment of appellate
counsel or otherwise show that he met the financial requirements
No. 00-60108
-3-
for such appointment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); FIFTH CIRCUIT PLAN
UNDER THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT § 2. He abandoned his appeal. See
United States v. Shorter, No. 97-60204 (5th Cir. Oct. 15, 1997).
Shorter has not demonstrated any error in the district court’s
judgment, and that judgment is AFFIRMED.