UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7030

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES ALBERT BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-95-443, CA-99-1109-3-19)

Submitted: November 30, 1999 Decided: December 13, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Albert Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

James Brown appeals the district court’s judgment denying his

motion for relief under

( West Supp. 1999). On

appeal, Brown first contends that the district court erred by

denying his motion without first conducting an evidentiary hearing.

No hearing is required, however, where the record conclusively

establishes that a petitioner is entitled to no relief. See

Fontaine v. United States,

(1973). Our review of

the record discloses that the district court properly determined

that no hearing was required in this case.

Brown next argues that the district court erred by sentencing

him based on his involvement with the distribution of “crack”

cocaine without requiring the Government to prove this as an

element of the offense. We decline to address this argument as it

is improperly raised initially on appeal. See Muth v. United

States,

(4th Cir. 1993). We also note that,

contrary to Brown’s contention, his appellate counsel was not

required to raise every argument on appeal that Brown instructed

him to raise. See Jones v. Barnes,

(1983).

Hence, his failure to do so does not constitute ineffective

assistance of counsel. Finally, we reject Brown’s assertion that

testimony by accomplices offered against him at trial was

inadmissable because it was offered in exchange for considerations

of leniency in violation of

(c)(2) (1994), as this

- 2 - argument is foreclosed under our recent decision in United

States v. Richardson, F.3d ,

(4th Cir.

Sept. 3, 1999).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -