Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30341/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30341-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Dietrich
Appellant
Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30341

BRIAN DIETRICH,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:17-CV-637

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brian Dietrich, Louisiana prisoner # 125055, was convicted by a jury of 

second degree murder and sentenced in 1988 to life imprisonment. He now 

moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) following the district court’s 

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as procedurally defaulted. 

To obtain a COA, a § 2254 petitioner must make “a substantial showing 

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here,

the district court’s denial of federal habeas relief is based on procedural 

* 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 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-30341 Document: 00515404618 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2020
No. 19-30341

2

grounds, this court will issue a COA “when the prisoner shows, at least, 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Dietrich fails to make the requisite showing for issuance of a COA with 

respect to the district court’s denial of his petition on procedural grounds. See

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. His motion for a COA is therefore denied. To the extent 

that he requests a COA regarding the district court’s denial of an evidentiary 

hearing, we construe his motion as a direct appeal of that issue and affirm. See

Norman v. Stephens, 817 F.3d 226, 234-35 (5th Cir. 2016).

COA DENIED; AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-30341 Document: 00515404618 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2020