United States v. Kurtis Lowe ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 19-10319      Document: 00515243401         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/19/2019
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 19-10319                      December 19, 2019
    Lyle W. Cayce
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                       Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    KURTIS KEITH LOWE,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:18-CV-112
    Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Kurtis Keith Lowe, federal prisoner # 97408-071, pleaded guilty to
    conspiracy to commit mail fraud and was sentenced in 2015 to 60 months of
    imprisonment and three years of supervised release.                  He unsuccessfully
    pursued 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. Then, almost a year after the dismissal of his
    § 2255 motion, he filed a motion to compel his former counsel to produce
    discovery and case file materials. The district court denied that motion, and
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 19-10319    Document: 00515243401     Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/19/2019
    No. 19-10319
    Lowe has now filed a motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal
    that denial.
    Because Lowe is not seeking to appeal the final order in a § 2255
    proceeding, his motion for a COA is denied as unnecessary. See 28 U.S.C.
    § 2253(c)(1)(B). Furthermore, Lowe’s motion for discovery in a closed § 2255
    proceeding was a “meaningless, unauthorized motion” with no statutory or
    legal basis.   United States v. Early, 
    27 F.3d 140
    , 142 (5th Cir. 1994).
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of motion on that basis. See
    
    id. To the
    extent that Lowe now attempts to raise any substantive claims
    regarding his conviction and sentence, we do not consider them. See United
    States v. Scruggs, 
    691 F.3d 660
    , 666 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Key, 
    205 F.3d 773
    , 774 (5th Cir. 2000).
    COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-10319

Filed Date: 12/19/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/19/2019