Young v. Vannoy

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30205
Summary Calendar

GLENN YOUNG,

Petitioner−Appellant,

versus

DARREL VANNOY, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary,

Respondent−Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
No. 5:15-CV-2759

Before SMITH, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Glenn Young, Louisiana prisoner #457113, moves for a certificate of

*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth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 5
TH CIRCUIT RULE 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 12, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-30205 Document: 00515450391 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2020

No. 19-30205
2
appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition
challenging his convictions of possession of more than 28 but less than 200
grams of cocaine and illegal use of weapons. He contends that (1) the evidence
was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective
because (a) he did not challenge the search warrant and failed to exclude evi-
dence; (b) he did not file a motion to continue; (c) he did not object at trial to
the references to marihuana; (d) he did not note the race and sex of the jurors;
(e) he did not object that state law was violated because not all bench confer-
ences were recorded; (f) he did not object to testimony concerning the special
response team; and (g) he did not request a jury instruction on accomplice
testimony; and (3) the state trial court lacked jurisdiction. Young also appeals
the denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing.
In his COA motion, Young does not raise the following claims: The trial
court failed to comply with various state laws; the trial court erred in allowing
testimony concerning the special response team; the prosecutor’s presentation
of evidence concerning the special response team constituted misconduct; and
his counsel failed to file a motion to quash the multiple-offender bill. Young
has abandoned these claims by failing to brief them adequately. See Hughes
v. Dretke, 412 F.3d 582, 597 (5th Cir. 2005).
To obtain a COA, Young must make a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Where the district court denies the claims on the
merits, the petitioner must establish that reasonable jurists would find the
decision to deny relief debatable or wrong, see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000), or that the issue deserves encouragement to proceed further, see
Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327.
Young’s arguments do not meet this standard. We construe his motion
Case: 19-30205 Document: 00515450391 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2020

No. 19-30205
3
for a COA with respect to the denial of an evidentiary hearing as a direct
appeal of that issue, see Norman v. Stephens, 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016),
and affirm, see Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181−82, 185−86 (2011).
The motion for a COA is DENIED. The denial of Young’s motion for an
evidentiary hearing is AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-30205 Document: 00515450391 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/12/2020