United States v. Minh Le ( 2020 )

Case: 19-20867 Document: 00515635338 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 12, 2020
No. 19-20867 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Minh Le, also known as Iso,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CV-4460
USDC No. 4:16-CR-157-1
Before Jones, Costa, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Minh Le, federal prisoner # 06182-479, pleaded guilty to conspiracy
to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and he was sentenced
to 120 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. He now
requests a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-20867 Document: 00515635338 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2020
No. 19-20867
U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He argues that the district court erred by summarily
denying his § 2255 motion without giving reasons for its decision, and he
contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his
counsel failed to object to the Government’s breach of the plea agreement.
The record confirms that the district court denied Le’s motion in a
brief order that gave no reasons. Though the rules governing § 2255 motions
do not explicitly require findings and conclusions, this court has
“consistently require[d] district courts to state findings and conclusions for
their rulings on motions to vacate sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”
United States v. Daly, 823 F.2d 871, 872 (5th Cir. 1987). Without findings of
fact or conclusions of law, this court cannot ascertain the reasons for the
district court’s rejection of the claims raised in Le’s § 2255 motion or
determine whether Le has raised issues on appeal that meet the standard for
issuance of a COA, which requires “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that a COA is GRANTED and the
case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of the district court’s entering
an order with stated reasons for its denial of Le’s § 2255 motion. Once the
district court has supplemented the record on appeal with its reasons, Le may
file a brief addressing those reasons. This court will then address the merits
of Le’s motion for a COA.
2