United States v. Harrison ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50245
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TONY HARRISON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-01-CR-112-ALL
--------------------
December 16, 2002
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tony Harrison pleaded guilty to count 1 of an indictment
charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm and
has appealed his conviction and sentence. Harrison’s original
attorney was permitted to withdraw and substitute counsel was
appointed 15 days before the sentencing hearing. Harrison argues
that his right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to
counsel were denied because the district court refused to
continue the sentencing hearing.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 02-50245
-2-
The Fourth Amendment issues which Harrison wishes to raise
were waived by entry of the guilty plea. See United States v.
Owens, 996 F.2d 59, 60 (5th Cir. 1993). Harrison does not state
on appeal why he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea.
Nor does he state what additional issues could have been raised
with regard to the findings and conclusions in the presentence
report. Accordingly, Harrison has not shown that he was
prejudiced because the district court denied the motion for a
continuance. See United States v. Castro, 15 F.3d 417, 423 (5th
Cir. 1994).
Because the record has not been developed, we have not
considered whether Harrison’s original attorney rendered
ineffective assistance in failing to file a motion to suppress or
in advising Harrison to enter a guilty plea. See United States
v. Navejar, 963 F.2d 732, 735 (5th Cir. 1992). To the extent
that Harrison contends that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel after substitute counsel was appointed, Harrison has not
satisfied either prong of the standard in Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-94 (1984). The judgment is
AFFIRMED.