IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20609

ARTIMUS LORENZO FEGANS,

Petitioner−Appellant,

versus

LORIE DAVIS, Director, 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,

Respondent−Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 4:17-CV-3834

Before SMITH, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Artimus Fegans, Texas prisoner #1550650, has moved for a certificate of 

* 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

February 21, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-20609 Document: 00515319221 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2020
No. 18-20609

2

appealability (“COA”) to appeal the disposition of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application in which he attacked his conviction of aggravated robbery. The district 

court dismissed the § 2254 application as time-barred.

Fegans asserts that the application was timely. He contends that the 

district court ignored state law and erroneously identified the date on which 

his judgment was final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Fegans

contends that Texas state law provides that direct review is over when the 

state appeals court issues the mandate and, if that date was used to determine

when the judgment was final, his § 2254 application was timely. He further 

contends that, under § 2244(d)(2), he was entitled to have the limitations period tolled until his post-habeas motion for an extension of time to request reconsideration was denied. 

A COA may issue “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Fegans may meet that

standard by establishing “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.” 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Where, as here, the denial of 

relief is based on procedural grounds, “a COA should issue 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).

Fegans has not made the necessary showing. Accordingly, the motion 

for a COA is DENIED. 

Fegans asserts that the district court erred by failing to conduct an evi-

 Case: 18-20609 Document: 00515319221 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2020
No. 18-20609

3

dentiary hearing. We construe his motion for a COA as 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). Fegans has not shown that the district court 

abused its discretion in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing because 

the record was sufficiently developed to allow the district court to find that his

§ 2254 application was time-barred. See § 2254(e)(2); Richards v. Quarterman, 

566 F.3d 553, 563 (5th Cir. 2009). The order denying an evidentiary hearing 

is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-20609 Document: 00515319221 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/21/2020