United States v. Castillo

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-20493
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILSON VIDES CASTILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-92-CR-255-1
- - - - - - - - - -
April 12, 1996
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wilson Vides Castillo appeals the denial of his motion for
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Castillo argues that the
evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because he
could not be convicted of conspiring with government informant
agents, an uncorroborated informant's tip was inadmissible
hearsay and insufficient to support his conviction, and there was
no evidence that he knowingly conspired with his codefendant,
Hector Rocero. He also argues that the search of Rocero's car
was illegal because the officer's lacked probable cause, the
search followed a pretextual stop, and Castillo lacked standing
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 95-20493
-2-
to consent to the search of Rocero's home. Castillo contends
that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object that
Castillo could not be convicted for conspiring with a government
informant agent, that Rocero's incriminating, inconsistent,
perjurious hearsay statements were inadmissible, that the search
was illegal. Castillo also argues his sentence should be
remanded because he disputed the hearsay statements of government
informant agents, thus there was no evidence in the presentence
report (PSR) of Castillo's guilt, and the district court failed
to make findings regarding the disputed facts as required by Fed.
R. Cr. P. 32(c)(3)(D). However, this argument merely challenges
the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.
Castillo's argument that the search was illegal raises a
constitutional issue. Although the district court did not
address the issue, the Government pleaded the procedural bar, and
Castillo has not shown cause for failing to raise this issue on
direct appeal or prejudice. Thus, we refuse to review it. See
United States v. Shaid, 937 F.2d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 1991) (en
banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 (1992).
We affirm the other issues for essentially the reasons
relied upon by the district court. Castillo does not argue the
application of the sentencing guidelines issues raised in the
district court; those issues are abandoned. Hobbs v. Blackburn,
752 F.2d 1079, 1083 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 838
(1985).
AFFIRMED.