### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50468 Summary Calendar

ANTHONY KINTA WEBB , Petitioner

− Appellant ,

v ersus LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department o f Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division , Respondent

− Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 6:18

- CV

- 270

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Anthony Webb, Texas prisoner #2077771, moves for a certificate of

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR CUIT R ULE 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR CUIT R ULE 47.5.4.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

### FILED July 9, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50468 Document: 00515482846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2020No. 19

- 50468

2 appealability ( “ COA ” ) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition chal

lenging his conviction of assault by occlusion and the associated sentence. T o obtain a COA, a petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). If the district court denies relief o n the merits, the petitioner must establish that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assess

ment of the claims debatable or wrong. Slack v

. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). If relief is denied on procedural grounds, a COA should issue i f the petitioner demonstrates , at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the application “ 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.” Id

. Webb contends that his right to a speedy trial was violated and that the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to instruct the jury on a lesser

- included offense. He maintains that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the district court erred in dismissing his claim of insufficient evidence on procedural grounds. Webb asserts that trial counsel was ineffective in several respects and that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the enhance ment of his sentence on account of a prior
conviction. He also asserts that the prosecution violated his due process rights by failing to correct false testimony and violated Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Be cause he has failed to make the requisite showing on any of the above claims, the request for a COA is DENIED. See Slack , 529 U.S. at 484. Webb also contends that the district court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing

. To the extent that Webb seeks a COA on th at issue, his request is construed “as a direct appeal from the denial of an evidentiary hearing.” Norman v. Stephens , 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016). Because Case: 19-50468 Document: 00515482846 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2020No. 19

- 50468

3 Webb h as failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing, we AFFIRM

. See Cullen v. Pinholster , 563 U.S. 170, 185

− 86 (2011) ; Norman , 817 F.3d at 235. Webb’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. Case: 19-50468 Document: 00515482846 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/09/2020