Court Opinion

ID: 9961158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 00:01:05.078934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:21.954808
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11104           Document: 151-1           Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/17/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 22-11104
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                                  April 17, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Derrick Adrian Johnson,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                    USDC Nos. 3:21-CV-1676, 3:16-CR-349-1
                   ______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Derrick Adrian Johnson, federal prisoner # 36454-177, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction
for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). This court granted
Johnson a certificate of appealability (COA) as to whether appellate counsel

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11104          Document: 151-1          Page: 2      Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                      No. 22-11104

was ineffective “for failing to investigate and raise a challenge to the district
court’s refusal to grant him funds for a mental health expert.”
        Johnson’s opening brief contains no meaningful argument as to
whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and
challenge the district court’s denial of his requests for funding to hire a
mental health expert. The brief cites neither the general standard for
assessing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), nor the specific standard applicable to claims of
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259,
285 (2000). Instead, it simply argues that the district court and this court
wrongfully denied his claims that he was entitled to funds to retain a mental
health expert who could aid him in presenting an insanity defense, complains
that both courts willfully failed to follow binding Supreme Court and circuit
precedent, and states that the standard of review is for “manifest error.”
        Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, even pro se
litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a).
Because Johnson has failed to brief the issue of appellate counsel’s
ineffectiveness, he has abandoned the sole issue on which this court granted
a COA. See Webb v. Davis, 940 F.3d 892, 899 (5th Cir. 2019); Emerson v.
Thaler, 464 F. App’x 346, 346-47 (5th Cir. 2012). 1 We may not address the
claims that Johnson does raise because our review is limited to the issue for
which we granted the COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Webb, 940 F.3d at 899;
United States v. Kimler, 150 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir. 1998).

        _____________________
        1
          Although an unpublished opinion issued on or after January 1, 1996, is not
controlling precedent, it may be considered as persuasive authority. See Ballard v. Burton,
444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4).

                                            2
Case: 22-11104        Document: 151-1       Page: 3     Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                  No. 22-11104

       Finally, Johnson has filed a motion asking this court to sanction the
Government. As relief, he also asks this court to order the Government to
serve him with a copy of its brief. Having failed to properly brief the issue for
which a COA was granted, Johnson is not entitled to file a reply brief
remedying that deficiency. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir.
1994). Johnson was aware as early as November 7, 2023, that the
Government had filed its brief because he mentioned it in his motion to
expedite his appeal. Also, this court sent Johnson a letter on November 6,
2023, advising him that the Government’s brief was deemed filed that day
and that he had 21 days to file a reply brief. Johnson’s motion to expedite
references that letter as well. Although he alleges that he contacted the
Government multiple times to request a copy of its brief, he does not include
a copy of any letters or a copy of his mail log to substantiate his claims. More
importantly, Johnson’s reply brief was due November 27, 2023. Yet he
waited until “early December” to send his first letter to the Government;
waited until January 25, 2024, to ask this court to provide him a copy of the
Government’s brief; waited until February 20, 2024, to move this court to
order the Government to provide him with a copy of its brief; and has not
previously moved for an extension of time to file his reply brief.
Furthermore, given Johnson’s lack of diligence, we will not entertain a
motion for extension of time to file a reply brief or to file a reply brief out of
time. See 5th Cir. R. 31.4.4.
       Johnson’s motion to sanction the Government is DENIED.
Johnson’s motions for release pending appeal and to expedite the appeal also
are DENIED. See Calley v. Callaway, 496 F.2d 701, 702 (5th Cir. 1974).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See Webb, 940 F.3d at
899.

                                        3