DocketNumber: 20-30479
Filed Date: 1/20/2021
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/21/2021
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 his28 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him of allegations against * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin- ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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). 2