IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10402
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE LOUIS PECINA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:91-CR-94-2-E
--------------------
October 26, 2001
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Louis Pecina appeals the dismissal of his motion for
arrest of judgment and to dismiss the indictment. Because Pecina
does not argue that it was error for the district court to have
construed his filing as a second or successive motion pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 and to have dismissed it for lack of
jurisdiction, the issue is deemed abandoned. Brinkmann v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Although we afford a liberal construction to pro se filings, pro
se appellants are required to brief the issues and reasonably
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10402
-2-
comply with the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 28. Grant v.
Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). We do not consider
Pecina’s jurisdictional argument raised for the first time in his
reply brief. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir.
1994) (scope of reply brief is limited, and appellant abandons
all issues not raised and argued in initial brief on appeal);
Knighten v. Commissioner, 702 F.2d 59, 60 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1983)
(issue may not be raised for first time in reply brief, even by a
pro se appellant).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.