Perry v. Brush, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60079
Summary Calendar
GEORGE PERRY,
also known as George Perry, Jr.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JOHN BRUSH; MIKE MOORE, Attorney
General, State of Mississippi,
Respondents-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:97-CV-175-S-A
--------------------
December 29, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George Perry, Mississippi prisoner #84201, appeals from the
denial of his pro se writ of habeas corpus petition filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Perry was granted a certificate of
appealability by the district court on the issue whether his
counsel rendered ineffective assistance arising from counsel’s
prior representation of a prosecution witness. In addition to
this issue, Perry argues the issue of whether he was denied Due
Process. However, the Due Process issue will not be reviewed

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-60079
-2-
because it falls outside the ambit of the certificate of
appealability. See Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 152 (5th
Cir. 1997).
Perry’s attorney did not have a conflict of interest because
he did not represent Perry and the prosecution witness
simultaneously and the prosecution witness was effectively cross-
examined. See Perillo v. Johnson, 79 F.3d 441, 447 (5th Cir.
1996). Further, Perry has not demonstrated prejudice. See Jones
v. Jones, 163 F.3d 285, 299 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 120 S.
Ct. 224 (1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --