United States v. Alaniz

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 31, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40828
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALBERTO REYNA ALANIZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:80-CR-72-1
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alberto Reyna Alaniz, federal prisoner # 12429-077, appeals
from the district court’s denial of relief on his petition for a
writ of coram nobis and from the denial of his FED. R. CIV. P.
60(b) motion seeking relief from judgment. Alaniz filed the
petition to challenge his 1982 conviction for conspiracy to
distribute heroin. Alaniz has completed his sentence for that
offense and is currently incarcerated pursuant to a sentence
imposed by a federal court in Missouri.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-40828
-2-
In his petition, Alaniz claimed that the district court
lacked jurisdiction to try him on the heroin conspiracy charge
because the offense occurred in the State of Texas. He claimed
that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not
raising the jurisdictional issue. Alaniz also claimed that his
trial counsel was ineffective with respect to his guilty plea and
that counsel coerced the plea by urging him to plead guilty to
the drug conspiracy. He contended that his co-defendants were
government informants and that conspiracy charges against the co-
defendants had been dropped for lack of evidence.
In his appellate brief, Alaniz argues the merits of his
claims and contends that he did not learn of the facts supporting
his claims until the latter part of 2003. He argues
conclusionally, and without citation to supporting evidence,
that he could not be guilty of conspiring with his co-defendants
because they were government informants, and he contends that
charges against his co-defendants were dropped for lack of
evidence.
Alaniz’s jurisdictional claim is frivolous, and his
associated claim of ineffective assistance is therefore without
merit. See United States v. Madkins, 14 F.3d 277, 278-79 (5th
Cir. 1994); Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 527 (5th Cir. 1990).
Aside from his conclusional and unsubstantiated statements,
Alaniz has made no attempt to show that his co-conspirators were
government informants or that the district court’s determination
No. 04-40828
-3-
that his co-conspirators pleaded guilty to related charges was
incorrect. Alaniz’s unsupported, conclusional assertions do not
show error on the part of the district court. See Koch 907 F.2d
at 530.
Alaniz has failed to show that there was any error
associated with his 1982 conviction, let alone an error
“resulting in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Jiminez v.
Trominski, 91 F.3d 767, 768 (5th Cir. 1996). Nor has Alaniz
shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying
his Rule 60 motion seeking relief from the judgment denying his
petition for a writ of coram nobis. See Aucoin v. K-Mart Apparel
Fashion Corp., 943 F.2d 6, 8 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.