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

No. 19

- 50067

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee

v. GEMASE LEE SIMMONS, also known as Geoff Stone, also known as “ G ” Simmons, also known as CJ, also known as Kevin , Defendant

- Appell ant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:16

- CV

- 1165 USDC No. 5:12

- CR

- 108

- 1

Before HAYNES, GRAVES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Following a bench trial, the district court convicted Gemase Lee Simmons, federal prisoner # 89016

- 280 , on 6 counts of bank fraud, 16 counts of production of child p ornography, 3 counts of receiving child pornography, 6 counts of distributing child pornography, 1 count of transporting child pornography, 3 counts of possession of child pornography, and 4 counts of

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 13, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50067 Document: 00515487372 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2020No. 19

- 50067

2 extortion . The district court sentenced Simmons to a t otal sentence of 10,776 months in prison. The district court denied Simmons’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing and denied his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion

. Simmons now seeks a certificate of appealability (CO A). Simmons renews his arguments that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to obtain a forensic expert to review Simmons’s iPhone for evidence of remote control by two individuals who had previously worked with Simmons , for failing to investigate exculpatory evidence , and for failing to interview and call as a witness one of the two individuals who had worked with Simmons

. This court will grant a COA only when the movant “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

. To make that showing, Simmons must “demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong , ” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (20 00) , or that the issues presented “deserve encouragement to proceed further , ” Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003)

. For a denial on procedural grounds without analysis of the underlying constitutional claims, Simmons must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition 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.” Slack , 529 U.S . at 484. Simmons has not made the requisite showing, and his motion for a COA is denied. See id. His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal is likewise denied. Case: 19-50067 Document: 00515487372 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2020No. 19

- 50067

3 Simmons’s directly appeals the district court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on his habeas claims. S ee Norman v. Stephens , 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016). The district court acted within its discretion in denying Simmons habeas relief without an evidentiary hearing. See § 2255(b); United States v. Duran , 934 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2019). We therefore affirm. COA DENIED; IFP DENIED; AFFIRMED. Case: 19-50067 Document: 00515487372 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/13/2020