UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-50003
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
HOMER LYNN HIXON,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(W-89-CR-96-1)
_____________________________________________________
(June 29, 1995)
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Homer Hixon, pro se, appeals from the denial of 28 U.S.C. §
2255 relief. We AFFIRM.
I.
Hixon pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to distribute
amphetamine, and was sentenced, inter alia, to 210 months
imprisonment. In sentencing Hixon, the district court applied the
career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, in light of Hixon's
1
Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that rule, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
two prior state court convictions for delivery of amphetamine. Our
court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
United States v. Hixon, No. 90-8172 (5th Cir. June 7, 1990)
(unpublished). In 1994, Hixon moved for modification of his
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 3582, claiming improper application of
the career offender guideline. The district court, which first
determined that the motion was governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2255, denied
the motion initially, and again on Hixon's motion for
reconsideration.
II.
Hixon claims § 2255 relief based on United States v.
Bellazerius, 24 F.3d 698, 700-02 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.
Ct. 375 (1994), which held that the Sentencing Commission exceeded
its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 994(h) in applying the career
offender guideline to defendants (like Hixon) convicted only of
conspiracy offenses. Hixon concludes that he is entitled to relief
because the career offender guideline cannot be applied to his
conspiracy conviction.
"Relief under ... § 2255 is reserved for transgressions of
constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries that could
not have been raised on direct appeal and would, if condoned,
result in a complete miscarriage of justice." United States v.
Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992). Our court recently
addressed the precise issue raised by Hixon and held that it is not
- 2 -
cognizable under § 2255. United States v. Williams, No. 94-50329
(5th Cir. March 27, 1995) (unpublished).2
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgement is
AFFIRMED.
2
Because Williams bars Hixon's claim, we need not address the
retroactivity vel non of Bellazerius.
- 3 -