# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 60484

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Erik Ivan Betancourt Olguin,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:21

- CV

- 141 USDC No. 1:18

- CR

- 30

- 1

Before **Stewart, Haynes,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Erik Ivan Betancourt Olguin, federal prisoner # 20670

- 043 , moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C § 2255 motion challenging his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The district court sua

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 14, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60484 Document: 00516280923 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2022No. 21

- 60484

2 sponte dismissed Betancourt Olguin’s § 2255 motion, in which he raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, as time barred.
A COA may be issued only if the movant “has made a subs tantial 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). When a district court rejects a claim on procedural grounds, this court will issue a COA only if the movant “shows, at l east, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the [motion] 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.” Sla ck , 529 U.S. at 484.
Pursuant to a Supreme Court order dated March 19, 2020, 1 the deadline for Betancourt Olguin to file his petition for a writ of certiorari was extended to 150 days from this court’s January 14, 2020 judgment affirming
his conviction. See United States v. Olguin , 790 F. App’x 5 (5th Cir. 2020). Accordingly , Betancourt Olguin’s judgment of conviction would have become final on June 12, 2020, and he would have had until June 12, 2021, to file his § 2255 motion; his § 2255 motion, filed o n April 14, 2021, was therefore seemingly timely. See § 2255(f)(1); Clay v. United States , 537 U.S. 522, 532 (2003)

. Further, reasonable jurists could debate whether Betancourt Olguin’s claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by misa dvising him during plea negotiations states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. See Houser v. Dretke , 395 F.3d 560, 561 (5th Cir. 2004)

. As Betancourt Olguin has made the necessary showing, we **GRANT**
his motion for a COA. See Slack , 529 U.S. at 484 ; Houser , 395 F.3d at 561.

1 See https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/031920zr_d1o3.pdf

. Case: 21-60484 Document: 00516280923 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2022No. 21

- 60484

3 Since further briefing is unnecessary, we **VACATE** the judgment of the
district court and **REMAND** for further proceedings. Case: 21-60484 Document: 00516280923 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2022