
    Philip Gerald BIQUET, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-40480.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 12, 2005.
    
      Philip Gerald Biquet, Pampa, TX, pro se.
    Elizabeth A. Goettert, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Philip Gerald Biquet, Texas prisoner # 1120742, seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state-court jury-trial conviction for felony driving while intoxicated. Biquet was granted a certificate of appealability (COA) by the district court on the issues whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to obtain medical records demonstrating that Biquet (1) suffered from asthma, thereby justifying his refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test and (2) had previously suffered two broken ankles, thereby explaining Biquet’s failure to satisfactorily perform those roadside sobriety tests requiring balance.

Biquet fails to meet the standard for obtaining habeas relief on his certified claims of ineffective assistance. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) & (2); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Dowthitt v. Johnson, 230 F.3d 733, 741 (5th Cir.2000). The introduction at trial of Biquet’s medical records would have potentially had only a limited impact on the state’s case. The record reveals other evidence of guilt presented at Biquet’s trial that supports his conviction, including the arresting officers’ observations of intoxication, Biquet’s admission that he consumed alcoholic beverages prior to his arrest, and Biquet’s inability to perform sobriety tests, including sobriety tests that did not require balance. Under these circumstances, Biquet fails to demonstrate prejudice resulting from counsel’s alleged errors. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

In a reply brief, Biquet asks this court to broaden the scope of the COA “to include all issues presented that effected petitioners right to have received a fair trial.” We reject this request as untimely. See United States v. Williamson, 183 F.3d 458, 464 n. 11 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Kimler, 150 F.3d 429, 431 (5th Cir.1998); United States v. Prince, 868 F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th Cir.1989).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.
     