IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-31214

Summary Calendar

TERRENCE KNIGHT BENOIT,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:07-CV-39

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Terrence Knight Benoit, Louisiana prisoner # 489486, seeks a certificate

of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition challenging his guilty plea conviction and concurrent two-year sentences

on 58 counts of child pornography. Without challenging the bases for the

dismissal of his claims, Benoit iterates several of the claims he raised in his

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 22, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

1

Case: 09-31214 Document: 00511182551 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2010
No. 09-31214

§ 2254 petition. He asserts that his guilty plea was involuntary because he was

not advised of all of the elements of the crime of possession of child pornography;

that under Louisiana law, case law, and sentencing guidelines, his sentences

should have been imposed to run concurrently because his offenses were part of

a common scheme or plan; that the imposition of concurrent sentences for each

of his 58 counts of conviction for child pornography violates the Double Jeopardy

Clause; that his sentence is cruel and excessive punishment in violation of the

Louisiana constitution; that “Rule 402" recognizes but makes no attempt to set

forth the constitutional considerations that impose limits on the admission of

relevant evidence that is obtained by illegal searches and seizures; and that

police obtained incriminating statements made in violation of his right to

counsel.

We may not issue a COA unless Benoit makes “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). To obtain a COA Benoit 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 for issues dismissed on procedural grounds,

must also show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484.

Benoit has failed to make the requisite showing to warrant a COA.

Accordingly, his request for a COA to appeal the denial of his § 2254 petition is

denied. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.

Benoit also argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to

recuse. A COA is not required to appeal the denial of a motion for the district

court to recuse itself in a habeas proceeding. See Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d

173, 176-78 (5th Cir. 1999). Benoit does not challenge the basis of the district

court’s denial of this motion, that it was untimely. Thus, he has abandoned this

issue for appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813

2

Case: 09-31214 Document: 00511182551 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2010
No. 09-31214

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are liberally construed,

even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v.

3

Case: 09-31214 Document: 00511182551 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/22/2010
No. 09-31214

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court’s judgment

denying Benoit’s motion to recuse is affirmed.

COA DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

4

Case: 09-31214 Document: 00511182551 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/22/2010