Court Opinion

ID: 9907792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 01:00:40.630919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:25.657826
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60386         Document: 00516992218             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/06/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-60386
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               December 6, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Terrance Carvell Guinn,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                                USDC No. 5:23-CV-48
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Terrance Carvell Guinn, a former federal prisoner, moves for a
   certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his motion
   challenging his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; in
   his motion, he sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and coram nobis relief
   under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Guinn contends that the district court erred by

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60386      Document: 00516992218          Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/06/2023

                                    No. 23-60386

   (i) dismissing the § 2255 claim because he has completed his sentence and
   (ii) determining that his request for coram nobis relief is barred by his prior
   waiver of his right to challenge his conviction in a postconviction proceeding.
          To obtain a COA with respect to the denial of a § 2255 motion, a
   prisoner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
   right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000).
   When a district court has denied a request for habeas relief on procedural
   grounds, the prisoner 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, 529 U.S. at
   484.
          Guinn fails to make the necessary showing. See id. Accordingly, his
   motion for a COA as to the claim for § 2255 relief is DENIED. In light of
   this failure, we do not reach whether the district court erred by denying an
   evidentiary hearing on this claim. See United States v. Davis, 971 F.3d 524,
   534-35 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Because Guinn is not required to obtain a COA to appeal the denial of
   his claim for coram nobis relief, we DENY a COA on this claim as
   unnecessary.     See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).       Guinn fails to raise a
   nonfrivolous argument either that the district court erred by holding that the
   postconviction waiver barred his coram nobis claim, see United States v.
   Barnes, 953 F.3d 383, 386 (5th Cir. 2020), or that the court abused its
   discretion by denying this claim without first conducting an evidentiary
   hearing, see United States v. Massey, 79 F.4th 396, 402 n.3 (5th Cir. 2023).
   Accordingly, we DISMISS as frivolous his appeal from the denial of coram
   nobis relief. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

                                         2