Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10940/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10940-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Kincaid
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10940

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL KINCAID,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CV-2905

USDC No. 3:12-CR-261-2

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Kincaid, federal prisoner # 45049-177, moves for a certificate of 

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

time barred. In his § 2255 motion, Kincaid challenged his conviction for 

conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and sentence of 60 months of 

imprisonment on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.

 

* 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

March 30, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10940 Document: 00513445490 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2016
No. 15-10940

2

Reasonable jurists would find that the district court erred in sua sponte 

dismissing Kincaid’s § 2255 motion as time barred without giving the parties 

notice and an opportunity to address the timeliness of his motion. See Day v. 

McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209-10 (2006); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000). Additionally, “the district court pleadings, the record, and the COA 

application demonstrate that reasonable jurists could debate whether the 

petitioner has made a valid claim of a constitutional deprivation.” Houser v. 

Dretke, 395 F.3d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, Kincaid’s motion for a COA is GRANTED; his motion for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his § 2255 motion as untimely is VACATED; and the matter is 

REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with Day. See Whitehead v. 

Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998).

 Case: 15-10940 Document: 00513445490 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2016