Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50264/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50264-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Omar Chavez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50264

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OMAR CHAVEZ, also known as Hector Manuel Martinez-Balderas,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CV-834

USDC No. 5:16-CR-358-1

Before: HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK, and WILLET, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Omar Chavez, federal prisoner # 52414-280, moves for a certificate of 

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

challenging his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess 

methamphetamine with intent to distribute. He also seeks leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Chavez contends that (1) he did not validly 

waive his right to collaterally challenge his sentence; (2) the Government

* 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

April 1, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50264 Document: 00515368506 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2020
No. 19-50264

2

breached the plea agreement; (3) the district court erred by denying § 2255 

relief without an evidentiary hearing; and (4) he received ineffective assistance 

of counsel.

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

of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), by “showing that reasonable 

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the [motion]

should have been resolved in a different manner 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); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet that burden, he must show that 

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

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.

With respect to his claims of invalid waiver, breach of the plea 

agreement, and ineffective assistance of counsel, Chavez fails to make the 

required showing to obtain a COA, and the motion for a COA is denied. We 

construe Chavez’s 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. Finally, because 

Chavez has not shown that his appeal will raise legal points arguable on their 

merits, we deny the motion to proceed IFP. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 

220 (5th Cir. 1983).

COA DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

APPEAL IFP DENIED.

Case: 19-50264 Document: 00515368506 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2020