Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50019/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50019-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oscar Armando Avila-Jaimes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR ARMANDO AVILA-JAIMES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:18-CV-437

 

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Armando Avila-Jaimes, federal prisoner # 44428-380, moves for a 

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction and sentence for possession 

with intent to distribute cocaine and one count of money laundering. He 

argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that he could 

not contest his guilt if he pleaded guilty and for misleading him. He also 

asserts that counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the evidence 

* 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 14, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50019 Document: 00515382156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2020
No. 19-50019

2

presented at sentencing. He also argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary 

hearing. Avila-Jaimes does not renew his claims alleging ineffective assistance 

for failing to conduct an investigation and that his sentence was 

unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, these issues are 

abandoned. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999).

In order to obtain a COA, Avila-Jaimes must make “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). Where the district court denies 

relief on the merits, an applicant 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. An applicant satisfies the COA standard “by 

demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s 

resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues 

presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Avila-Jaimes has not met this 

standard. His motion for a COA is denied. 

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: 19-50019 Document: 00515382156 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2020