United States v. May ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-51204
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WALTER RUBIN MAY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-99-CV-746-HG
USDC No. SA-95-CR-309-1
--------------------
December 22, 2000
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Walter Rubin May, federal prisoner # 21686-077, has appealed
the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to
vacate. WE AFFIRM.
The district court granted a certificate of appealability
(COA) on whether the court should have held an evidentiary hearing
relative to May’s two claims that his counsel’s failure to present
the testimony of three named persons at his sentencing hearing
constituted ineffective assistance. This court holds that there
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 99-51204
-2-
was no abuse of the district court’s discretion in so ruling,
substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its
COA order. United States v. May, No. SA-99-CV-746-HG (W.D. Tex.
Jan. 7, 2000)(unpublished).
May contends that the district court erred by denying relief
on his claims of (1) counsel ineffectiveness during the trial,
(2) knowing use of perjured testimony by the Government, and
(3) failure of the Government to provide favorable evidence to the
defense. These rulings are not appealable, however, for lack of a
COA relative to them. See United States v. Kimler, 150 F.3d 429,
431 n.1 (5th Cir. 1998).
May’s pro se application for leave to file a supplemental
brief is DENIED, because he is represented by counsel. See 5TH CIR.
R. 28.7.
MOTION DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.