Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40072/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40072-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Chacon-Lara
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40072

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANUEL CHACON-LARA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 7:18-CV-31

 USDC No. 7:14-CR-1871-1

Before DENNIS, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Manuel Chacon-Lara, federal prisoner # 19198-198, moves for a 

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion challenging his sentence for possession with intent to distribute 

methamphetamine. In his § 2255 motion, Chacon-Lara claimed that counsel 

rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a “fast track” sentencing 

reduction. 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 26, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-40072 Document: 00515427614 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2020
No. 19-40072

2

To obtain a COA, a movant must make “a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court 

has denied the claims on the merits, “[t]he [movant] must demonstrate that 

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims debatable or wrong” or that “the issues presented were 

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Chacon-Lara has not met this standard with respect to his ineffective 

assistance claim and has therefore not shown an entitlement to a COA.

We construe his motion for a COA with respect to the district court’s 

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. 

COA DENIED; AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-40072 Document: 00515427614 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2020