
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lishon Marcelle HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10339
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 4, 2014.
    Timothy W. Funnell, Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, Tx, Frank Lawrence Gatto, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Lishon Marcelle Hudson, Bastrop, TX, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Lishon Marcelle Hudson, now federal prisoner #39081-177, has appealed the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, for which he was sentenced in the middle of the guidelines range to a 135-month term of imprisonment and to a four-year period of supervised release. See United States v. Hudson, 422 Fed.Appx. 343 (5th Cir.2011) (direct appeal).

On this record, Hudson cannot carry his heavy burden of showing that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors in failing to object to the simultaneous application of U.S.S.G. §§ 3C1.2 and 4Bl.l(b), the district court would have imposed a more lenient sentence. See Lafler v. Cooper, — U.S.-,-, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1384, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012); United States v. Wines, 691 F.3d 599, 604 (5th Cir.2012).

Hudson’s conclusional argument, related to counsel’s failure to object to the attribution to Hudson of relevant conduct in the determination of the drug quantity at sentencing, fails to demonstrate any error by the district court. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878, 885-89 (5th Cir. 2009).

Because our review is limited to issues for which a certificate of appealability has been granted, other uncertified issues raised by Hudson have not been considered. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The judgment is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances’set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     