IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40248
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AUGUSTUS JOSEPH WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-94-CV-615
- - - - - - - - - -
December 19, 1995
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Williams filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Williams did not show that he was incompetent or that the
evidence before the district court raised a bona fide doubt about
his competency. Enriquez v. Procunier, 752 F.2d 111, 113 (5th
Cir. 1984) (§ 2254 case), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1126 (1985);
Flugence v. Butler, 848 F.2d 77, 79 (5th Cir. 1988) (§ 2254
*
Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of
opinions that 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Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published.
No. 95-40248
-2-
case). Williams's self-serving assertion that he had been
promised a downward departure from the guidelines in exchange for
his guilty plea, is completely at odds with the signed plea
agreement and the transcript of rearraignment. Williams has not
shown that his counsel's conduct fell below an objective standard
of reasonableness, and that he was prejudiced by the deficient
performance. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57-58 (1985).
AFFIRMED.