Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30205/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30205-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30205

Summary Calendar

GLENN YOUNG,

Petitioner−Appellant,

versus

DARREL VANNOY, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary,

Respondent−Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

No. 5:15-CV-2759

Before SMITH, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Glenn Young, Louisiana prisoner #457113, moves for a certificate of 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth 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 CIRCUIT RULE 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 12, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-30205 Document: 00515450391 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2020
No. 19-30205

2

appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition 

challenging his convictions of possession of more than 28 but less than 200 

grams of cocaine and illegal use of weapons. He contends that (1) the evidence 

was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective 

because (a) he did not challenge the search warrant and failed to exclude evidence; (b) he did not file a motion to continue; (c) he did not object at trial to 

the references to marihuana; (d) he did not note the race and sex of the jurors; 

(e) he did not object that state law was violated because not all bench conferences were recorded; (f) he did not object to testimony concerning the special 

response team; and (g) he did not request a jury instruction on accomplice 

testimony; and (3) the state trial court lacked jurisdiction. Young also appeals 

the denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing.

In his COA motion, Young does not raise the following claims: The trial 

court failed to comply with various state laws; the trial court erred in allowing 

testimony concerning the special response team; the prosecutor’s presentation 

of evidence concerning the special response team constituted misconduct; and 

his counsel failed to file a motion to quash the multiple-offender bill. Young

has abandoned these claims by failing to brief them adequately. See Hughes 

v. Dretke, 412 F.3d 582, 597 (5th Cir. 2005).

To obtain a COA, Young must make a substantial showing of the denial 

of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Where the district court denies the claims on the 

merits, the petitioner must establish that reasonable jurists would find the 

decision to deny relief debatable or wrong, see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000), or that the issue deserves encouragement to proceed further, see 

Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327. 

Young’s arguments do not meet this standard. We construe his motion 

Case: 19-30205 Document: 00515450391 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2020
No. 19-30205

3

for a COA with respect to the denial of an evidentiary hearing as a direct 

appeal of that issue, see Norman v. Stephens, 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016), 

and affirm, see Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181−82, 185−86 (2011).

The motion for a COA is DENIED. The denial of Young’s motion for an 

evidentiary hearing is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-30205 Document: 00515450391 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/12/2020