Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-11464/USCOURTS-ca5-18-11464-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joesephis Austin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11464

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

JOESEPHIS AUSTIN,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 3:16-CV-3420

Before SMITH, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joesephis Austin, federal prisoner #45524-177, was convicted of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances unlawfully. Without holding the evidentiary hearing that Austin requested, the district court denied his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion in part on the merits and in part as procedurally defaulted. 

* 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 3, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-11464 Document: 00515371270 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 18-11464

2

Austin moves for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge that denial. 

Austin asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain documents from former trial counsel, that trial counsel was ineffective for advising 

Austin to sign a waiver of his right to file a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion, and 

that the prosecution acted improperly by presenting false testimony and suppressing exculpatory evidence. Austin also contends that the district court 

erred in denying his § 2255 motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. 

The other claims raised in the district court are abandoned. See Hughes v. 

Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999).

To obtain a COA, Austin 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). If the district court denies relief on the merits, 

the prisoner must show that jurists of reason would debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented deserve encouragement to proceed further. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. If the court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must show “that jurists of reason would find 

it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. 

Austin has failed to make the showing necessary to obtain a COA. The 

motion for a COA is DENIED.

We construe Austin’s motion 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). That order is AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-11464 Document: 00515371270 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2020