United States v. Smallwood ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-50619
No. 95-50659
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT JESSE SMALLWOOD,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas
(SA-95-CA-0167 & SA-89-CR-301)
September 25,1996
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM:
Robert Jesse Smallwood appeals from the district court’s
denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Smallwood argues that the district
court followed improper procedure in denying his motion by shifting
to him the burden of proof on the prejudice prong of his
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that he was entitled
to an evidentiary hearing on the issue. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. The district court properly
analyzed Smallwood’s claim. Accordingly, we affirm essentially for
the reasons adopted by the district court. See United States v.
Smallwood, No. SA-95-CA-0167 (W.D. Tex. July 27, 1995); see also
United States v. Smallwood, No. SA-95-CV-0166 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 7,
1995). Smallwood was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See
United States v. Acklen, 47 F.3d 739, 743 (5th Cir. 1995); United
States v. Auten, 632 F.2d 478, 480 (5th Cir. 1980). Smallwood
abandons on appeal, by failing to brief the issue, his substantive
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Brinkmann v. Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); see Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6).
AFFIRMED
2