United States v. Lewis

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: January 20, 2021
• Docket: 20-30479
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 20-30479 Document: 00515713309 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2021

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED January 20, 2021 No. 20-30479 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Anthony Lewis, Jr.,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 2:19-CV-13422

Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Anthony Lewis, Jr., federal prisoner # 34190-034, moves for a certifi- cate of appealability (“COA”) from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his guilty plea to possessing with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin. He maintains that, but for his trial counsel’s failure fully to inform him of allegations against

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin- ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-30479 Document: 00515713309 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2021

No. 20-30479

one of the arresting special agents, he would have gone to trial instead of accepting a plea agreement. That failure to inform him, Lewis avers, consti- tuted ineffective assistance of counsel. To obtain a COA, Lewis must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To satisfy that bur- den, he must show 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 (2000), or that the issues he presents “are ade- quate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Because Lewis has not made the requisite showing, his motion for a COA is DENIED. We have no need to reach the question whether the dis- trict court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Davis, 971 F.3d 524, 534–35 (5th Cir. 2020).