United States v. Lightfoot ( 2022 )

Case: 21-30779 Document: 00516356570 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 14, 2022
No. 21-30779
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Chad Lightfoot,
Defendant—Appellant.
Application for a Certificate of Appealability
from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:21-CV-2473
USDC No. 3:17-CR-274-1
Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Chad Lightfoot, currently Louisiana prisoner # 301162, moves for a
certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction for engaging in a
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-30779 Document: 00516356570 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2022
No. 21-30779
fraudulent scheme in connection with major disaster or emergency benefits.
He argues that (1) the district court erred in dismissing as procedurally
defaulted his claims that the Government failed to disclose exculpatory
evidence, he was denied a fair trial, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by
contacting and threatening Lightfoot’s witnesses, he was denied the right to
counsel at the hearing on his pro se motion for a new trial, his trial counsel
had a conflict of interest and the court failed to conduct a hearing on the
conflict, the trial court should not have allowed the introduction of his prior
convictions, and he should be resentenced because his prior conviction for
bank fraud will soon be invalidated; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective in
handling of the Government’s threat or intimidation of a defense witness;
and (3) the district court erred in denying his motion for recusal. Lightfoot
has not briefed the other claims listed in his COA motion adequately and
thus, he has not made the showing required to obtain a COA as to those
claims. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999).
To obtain a COA as to the claims properly raised, Lightfoot must
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). For claims
denied on the merits, he must show “that jurists of reason could disagree
with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists
could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement
to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). For
claims denied on a procedural ground, he must show “at least, that jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the [motion] 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.
Lightfoot has not made such a showing. Accordingly, his COA motion
is DENIED. A COA is not required to appeal the denial of a motion to
2
Case: 21-30779 Document: 00516356570 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/14/2022
No. 21-30779
recuse. Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 173, 176–78 (5th Cir. 1999). However,
Lightfoot did not demonstrate grounds for recusal. See United States v.
Scroggins, 485 F.3d 824, 830 (5th Cir. 2007). The denial of the motion to
recuse is AFFIRMED.
3