The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7030
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES ALBERT BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-95-443, CA-99-1109-3-19)
Submitted: November 30, 1999 Decided: December 13, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Albert Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Chastain Wicker,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Brown appeals the district court’s judgment denying his
motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 1999). On
appeal, Brown first contends that the district court erred by
denying his motion without first conducting an evidentiary hearing.
No hearing is required, however, where the record conclusively
establishes that a petitioner is entitled to no relief. See
Fontaine v. United States, 411 U.S. 213, 215 (1973). Our review of
the record discloses that the district court properly determined
that no hearing was required in this case.
Brown next argues that the district court erred by sentencing
him based on his involvement with the distribution of “crack”
cocaine without requiring the Government to prove this as an
element of the offense. We decline to address this argument as it
is improperly raised initially on appeal. See Muth v. United
States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). We also note that,
contrary to Brown’s contention, his appellate counsel was not
required to raise every argument on appeal that Brown instructed
him to raise. See Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 753-54 (1983).
Hence, his failure to do so does not constitute ineffective
assistance of counsel. Finally, we reject Brown’s assertion that
testimony by accomplices offered against him at trial was
inadmissable because it was offered in exchange for considerations
of leniency in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) (1994), as this
- 2 -
argument is foreclosed under our recent decision in United
States v. Richardson, F.3d , 1999 WL 686892 (4th Cir.
Sept. 3, 1999).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -