Case Name: Richard HINOJOSA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas, Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-25
Citations: 141 F. App'x 395
Docket Number: No. 04-70048
Parties: Richard HINOJOSA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas, Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 395–396

Head Matter:
Richard HINOJOSA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas, Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-70048.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 25, 2005.
Michael Clark Gross, San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Ellen Stewart-Klein, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING APPELLEE'S PETITION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Richard Hinojosa petitions the court for a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the briefs, the decision below, and the record, we find that Hinojosa is not entitled to a GOA as to any issue. As this is a death penalty case, it deserves the most exacting scrutiny from this court, which typically involves a written opinion. The district court in this case, however, wrote a thoroughly detailed and well-reasoned 88-page opinion and order denying Hinojosa's petition for habeas relief and a COA. Were we to write a lengthy opinion affirming that court, we would be exalting formalism and scrupulosity over substance and judicial economy, adding nothing but repetition and doing nothing more than filling innumerable pages with synonyms and paraphrases. In this exceptional case, therefore, we decline to do so and simply deny Hinojosa's COA for the reasons well and fully explicated in the district court's writing.
PETITION DENIED.
Under 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be publish ed and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.