United States v. Murry

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
September 20, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-41595
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DWIGHT MURRY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-01-CR-28-ALL
USDC No. G-03-CV-410
--------------------
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dwight Murry, federal prisoner # 45004-079, pleaded guilty
to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine
base, and he was sentenced to 135 months of imprisonment. He
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion. This court granted COA on the sole issue whether
counsel’s alleged failure to advise Murry regarding the
possibility of appeal and to file a requested notice of appeal
constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-41595
-2-
On appeal, Murry argues that he should have been granted a
downward departure under his plea agreement, that the Government
violated his plea agreement, and that counsel was ineffective for
allowing the Government to breach the plea agreement. We will
not consider these arguments because they exceed the scope of the
issue on which COA was granted and because Murry has not
requested an expansion of the COA grant. See United States v.
Kimler, 150 F.3d 429, 430-31 (5th Cir. 1998); Lackey v. Johnson,
116 F.3d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997).
Murry has made no relevant appellate argument on the sole
issue on which COA was granted. Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 28(a)(9) requires that an appellant’s argument contain
the reasons why he deserves the requested relief, together with
citation to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record
relied on. Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), we nevertheless
require arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey
v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Issues not
adequately argued in the body of the brief are deemed abandoned
on appeal. See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --