United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10332

Summary Calendar

Alexander Loya, 

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

NFN Underwood, Warden

Respondent—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CV-216

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Alexander Loya, federal prisoner # 17693-035, appeals the dismissal 

of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 application. Loya filed the § 2241 application to 

challenge his military court convictions and sentences for abusive sexual 

contact with a child, indecent liberties with a child, and aggravated sexual 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

September 1, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10332 Document: 00516001066 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2021
No. 20-10332

2

contact with a child who had not obtained the age of 12 years. In his 

application, Loya alleged that his wife bribed and coerced the victim to testify

falsely against him. He attached to his application affidavits and other 

evidence that he contended supported his claim. The district court dismissed 

Loya’s application on the grounds that the military courts had fully and fairly 

considered his claims and that any freestanding claim of actual innocence was 

not cognizable as an independent ground for habeas relief.

On appeal, Loya challenges the district court’s finding that the 

military courts had fully and fairly considered his claims and asserts that the 

only issue before the court is whether his convictions should be allowed to 

stand in light of his allegation of bribery and coercion of the victim to testify 

falsely against him. Loya contends that his convictions violated his Fifth and 

Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, his Fifth Amendment right to an 

indictment by a grand jury, and his Sixth Amendment rights to an impartial 

jury and to confront adverse witnesses. We review the district court’s factual 

findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Christopher v. 

Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2003).

Federal courts have jurisdiction pursuant to § 2241 over petitions for 

habeas corpus filed by individuals challenging military convictions. See Burns 

v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 139 (1953). However, “in military habeas corpus the 

inquiry, the scope of matters open for review, has always been more narrow 

than in civil cases.” Id. Review of a military conviction is appropriate only 

where, inter alia, “the claim of error is one of constitutional significance, or 

so fundamental as to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” Calley 

v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184, 199 (5th Cir. 1975). Loya has failed to satisfy our 

“first inquiry” in analyzing an applicant’s § 2241 application insofar as he 

fails to demonstrate that his allegations raise a claim of “constitutional 

significance.” Id.

Case: 20-10332 Document: 00516001066 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2021
No. 20-10332

3

As to Loya’s claim that his due process rights were violated, Loya does 

not allege that the Government was involved in the alleged bribery scheme or 

even knew about it. Furthermore, he does not allege that the Government 

knowingly used or failed to correct the victim’s purportedly false testimony

or that the Government knew that the victim’s testimony was unreliable and 

failed to disclose such a fact. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153–

54 (1972); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959). Accordingly, Loya has 

failed to allege a cognizable claim that his due process rights were violated.

As to his claim that his right to a grand jury indictment was violated,

the Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury indictment, by its express terms, 

does not apply to members of the armed forces. See United States v. Hennis, 

79 M.J. 370, 378–79 (C.A.A.F. 2020); see also Solorio v. United States, 483 

U.S. 435, 439 (1987). As such, Loya has failed to allege a cognizable claim

that his Fifth Amendment right to an indictment by grand jury was violated.

With respect to his argument that his Sixth Amendment rights were 

violated, “the right to a jury trial does not apply to courts-martial, and never 

has.” Betonie v. Sizemore, 496 F.2d 1001, 1007 (5th Cir. 1974). Further, he 

fails to state a cognizable Sixth Amendment claim that he was denied the right 

to confront adverse witnesses because he does not allege that he was 

prohibited from being present in the courtroom during the testimony of any 

adverse witnesses, that he was prohibited from cross-examining any adverse 

witnesses, or that his cross-examination of any adverse witnesses was limited 

in any detrimental way. See United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146, 156 (5th Cir. 

2006); United States v. De Los Santos, 810 F.2d 1326, 1333–34 (5th Cir. 1987).

Finally, to the extent that Loya attempts to raise a stand-alone 

innocence claim, this court does not recognize freestanding claims of actual 

innocence on federal habeas review; an allegation of actual innocence does 

not by itself establish a constitutional violation. See In re Swearingen, 556 F.3d 

Case: 20-10332 Document: 00516001066 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/01/2021
No. 20-10332

4

344, 348 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (citing Graves v. Cockrell, 351 F.3d 143, 

151 (5th Cir. 2003)). In any event, Loya has abandoned any freestanding 

innocence claim insofar as he does not challenge the district court’s finding 

that such a claim was not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Yohey v. 

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Loya’s motion to 

supplement the record is DENIED as unnecessary.

Case: 20-10332 Document: 00516001066 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/01/2021