IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50468

Summary Calendar

ANTHONY KINTA WEBB,

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 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 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth 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 CIRCUIT RULE 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: 07/09/2020
No. 19-50468

2

appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction of assault by occlusion and the associated sentence. To 

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 on the merits, the petitioner 

must establish that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment 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 if 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 enhancement 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). Because 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 that 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: 07/09/2020
No. 19-50468

3

Webb has 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