Case Name: Justin David SHAFFER, Petitioner-Appellant v. The State of MISSISSIPPI; Marshall L. Fisher, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-21
Citations: 697 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: No. 15-60890
Parties: Justin David SHAFFER, Petitioner-Appellant v. The State of MISSISSIPPI; Marshall L. Fisher, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 263–264

Head Matter:
Justin David SHAFFER, Petitioner-Appellant v. The State of MISSISSIPPI; Marshall L. Fisher, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
No. 15-60890
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed April 21, 2017
Jane E. Tucker, Jackson, MS, for Petitioner-Appellant
Frances Patterson Croft, Special Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Respondent-Appellee

Opinion:
ORDER:
STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
Justin David Shaffer, Mississippi prisoner # 77380, moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and sentence for exploitation of a child in violation of Mississippi Code § 97-5-83(6). To obtain a COA, Shaffer must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Shaffer argues that the district court erred in treating as procedurally defaulted his claim that his 25-year- sentence was unconstitutionally disproportionate to his crime. He argues that his appellate attorney was ineffective in failing to raise the issue on direct appeal. For claims denied on procedural grounds, a COA movant must show "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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Shaffer fails to make such a showing.
He also raises the ineffective assistance argument regarding appellate counsel as a ground for habeas relief, and he argues that his conviction violated the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws. With respect to claims denied on the merits, a COA movant must show "that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Id. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595. Again, Shaffer fails to make the requisite showing.
COA DENIED.