Linda Sue Bryson, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee.
No. 00-3394
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Submitted: June 11, 2001 Filed: October
Before LOKEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District Judge
TUNHEIM, District Judge.
Petitioner Linda Sue Bryson appeals the district court‘s denial of her petition pursuant to
On January 12, 1996, Bryson was convicted of conspiring to distribute, and possessing with intent to distribute, more than a kilogram each of methamphetamine and heroin in violation of
Thereafter, Bryson filed a § 2255 petition, presenting eleven issues which she sought to challenge her conviction and sentence. The district court3 denied all grounds for relief, but issued a Certificate of Appealability (“COA“) to appeal the denial of Ground 10 of her motion under
To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Bryson must demonstrate both that her counsel‘s performance was deficient, and that counsel‘s deficient performance prejudiced her defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Steinkuehler v. Meschner, 176 F.3d 441, 445 (8th Cir. 1999). To establish the performance prong of the Strickland test, Bryson must show that her attorney‘s representation fell below the “range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal
The district court summarily dismissed Bryson‘s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the basis that “[m]ovant‘s allegations are brief, conclusory and fail to cite to the record.” (App. at 102.) Because Bryson failed to make any affirmative showing of what the evidence or testimony might have been, the court concluded that it could not even begin to apply the Strickland standards on such deficient allegations. (Id. at 102-03.)
On appeal, Bryson does not argue the only issue on which the district court issued the certificate of appealability. We have held that “appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the certificate of appealability.” Richardson v. Bowersox, 188 F.3d 973, 982 (8th Cir. 1999) (quoting Carter v. Hopkins, 157 F.3d 872, 874 (8th Cir. 1998); Kellogg v. Skon, 176 F.3d 447, 450 n.2 (8th Cir. 1999). Given Bryson‘s failure to argue her ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we accordingly affirm the district court‘s denial of Ground 10 of Bryson‘s
A true copy.
ATTEST:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
