United States v. Wisdom

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-31064 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

HAROLD RAY WISDOM,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana (CR-95-50012)

May 14, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Harold Ray Wisdom argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to respond to the Government’s request for

notice of his alibi witnesses; by failing to call alibi witnesses

at trial, and for failing to request additional jury instructions.

Wisdom’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on

counsel’s failures regarding alibi witnesses was not factually

1 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. developed in the district court. We therefore decline to address

the merits of the claim on direct appeal, but we do so without

prejudice to Wisdom’s right to raise the issue in a 28 U.S.C. §

2255 motion proceeding. See United States v. Andrews, 22 F.3d

1328, 1345 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 346 (1994).

With respect to Wisdom’s argument that counsel was ineffective

in failing to request additional jury instructions, we have

reviewed the record, including the trial transcript and the jury

instructions given by the district court to the jury, and have

determined that Wisdom has failed to demonstrate that his counsel

was ineffective in failing to request the additional instructions

proposed by Wisdom on appeal. See Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

AFFIRMED.