The opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 95-50555
Summary Calendar
_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WHITNEY BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(SA-94-CA-349)
_________________________________________________________________
January 13, 1997
Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Whitney Brown (#42655-080) has appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
Brown contends: (1) that the district court violated his right to due process in calculating his criminal
history score under the Sentencing Guidelines; (2) that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered and
that he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because the trial court failed to ensure that
Brown understood the terms of his plea agreement and the consequences of his plea; (3) that the
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
Sentencing Reform Act did not authorize the Sentencing Commission to adopt the relevant-conduct
guidelines; (4) that the district court’s reliance on the presentence report violated his confrontation
and due process rights; (5) that the relevant-conduct guidelines are unconstitutional and violate Due
Process protections because too much authority is delegated to the probation officer in determining
whether uncharged conduct is relevant to the offense of conviction; and (6) that his trial and appellant
counsel rendered ineffective assistance.
The President signed the Antiterro rism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(AEDPA) on April 24, 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). This circuit has held that
the AEDPA affects the jurisdiction of this court over appeals pending as of April 23, 1996. Drinkard
v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 754-56 (5th Cir. 1996). Under the amended § 2253, an appeal may not be
taken fro m a final order in a proceeding under § 2255 unless a circuit judge or justice issues a
certificate of appealability (“COA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (as amended). In Drinkard, the court
held that a certificate of appealability is issued under the same standard as the ol d certificate of
probable cause: that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.
97 F.3d at 756. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (as amended); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, 103
S.Ct. 3383, 3394-95 (1983).
We construe Brown’s Notice of Appeal as a request for issuance of a COA. We have
carefully reviewed the record and the briefs. Essentially for reasons adopted by the district court, see
Brown v. United States, No. SA-94-CA-349 (SA-88-CR-281(1)) (W.D. Tex. Jun. 12, 1995)
(unpublished), we hold that Brown has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. Thus, we deny his request for a COA.
AFFIRMED.