IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50350 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LEOPOLDO CAMARILLO-HERNANDEZ, also known as Rick Santiago, also known as Jose Santiago, also known as Jose Leopoldo Amarillo, also known as Joe Hernandez, also known as Napoleon Camarillo,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (00-CR-4) -------------------- March 19, 2003

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Leopoldo Camarillo-Hernandez (“Camarillo”), federal

prisoner # 04064-180, pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry into the

United States after having been previously deported in violation of

, and was sentenced to 84 months of imprisonment,

three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

Camarillo has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-50350 -2-

(COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his

motion, which the district court construed in part as a

(c)(2) motion. To obtain a COA, Camarillo must make a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See

(c)(2).

Camarillo does not raise his ineffectiveness claim in his COA

motion and, therefore, he has abandoned this argument on appeal.

See Hughes v. Johnson,

(5th Cir. 1999). His

claim that his sentence should be reduced under Amendment 632 to

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not cognizable under

. See

United States v. Williamson,

(5th Cir. 1999).

Because Camarillo has not made a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right concerning either of his claims, his COA

motion is DENIED.

To the extent that Camarillo is appealing the denial of his

(c)(2) motion, his appeal lacks merit. The district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Camarillo’s

(c)(2) motion, as Amendment 632 is not listed as

retroactively applicable in the policy statement of U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10(c). See United States v. Shaw,

(5th Cir.

1994). Because Camarillo’s appeal of the denial of his

(c)(2) motion is without arguable merit, it is DISMISSED.

See United States v. Alvarez,

(5th Cir. 2000).

COA MOTION DENIED; APPEAL OF DENIAL OF

MOTION

DISMISSED.