Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10203/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10203-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roger Wayne Langston
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10203

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROGER WAYNE LANGSTON, also known as Big Country,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CV-921

Before SMITH, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roger Wayne Langston, federal prisoner # 54048-177, moves this court 

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

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. 

Langston filed the motion to challenge his 480-month sentence for conspiracy 

to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. 

He asserts that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to 

object to various sentencing enhancements. He further asserts that the district 

* 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 27, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10203 Document: 00515395574 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2020
No. 19-10203

2

court erred in not conducting an evidentiary hearing prior to denying his 

§ 2255 motion. 

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

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If a district court has 

denied the constitutional claims on the merits, the movant “must demonstrate 

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

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000). Langston has failed to make the requisite showing. See Slack, 529 

U.S. at 484. Accordingly, his request for a COA is denied.

With respect to Langston’s claim that the district court should have held 

an evidentiary hearing, a COA is not required to appeal the denial of an 

evidentiary hearing in a federal habeas proceeding. Norman v. Stephens, 817 

F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016). We therefore construe his motion for a COA with 

respect to the district court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing as a direct 

appeal of that issue. See id.

We review a district court’s refusal to grant an evidentiary hearing on a 

§ 2255 motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 

435 (5th Cir. 2008). To show abuse of discretion, Langston must come forward 

with “independent indicia of the likely merit of [his] allegations.” Id. at 442 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Langston does not attempt to 

explain why an evidentiary hearing was necessary in his case, what such a 

hearing would have shown, or why the district court abused its discretion by 

failing to conduct such a hearing. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of 

Langston’s § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing is affirmed.

COA DENIED; AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-10203 Document: 00515395574 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2020