United States v. Peralta-Castro

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20522

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDWIN JASSIEL PERALTA-CASTRO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CV-2581
USDC No. 4:14-CR-356-7

Before DENNIS, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Edwin Jassiel Peralta-Castro, federal prisoner # 97057-379, pleaded
guilty to engaging in a monetary transaction in property derived from specified
unlawful activity and was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment. The
district court denied Peralta-Castro’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on the merits
without holding an evidentiary hearing. Peralta-Castro now seeks a certificate
of appealability (COA). He contends that his attorney rendered ineffective

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 13, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-20522 Document: 00515414596 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2020

No. 19-20522
2
assistance by failing to correctly explain his potential sentencing exposure
before advising him to plead guilty and advising Peralta-Castro that he would
be facing a guidelines range of 15-21 months at most, and by making legally
baseless arguments based on his misunderstanding of the Sentencing
Guidelines in the district court and on appeal. He also argues that the district
court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on his claims.
We will grant a COA only when the movant “has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Where the district court has
denied relief on the merits, the movant “must demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong” or that “the issues presented were adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Peralta-Castro has not
made the requisite showing. See id.
We construe the motion for a COA with respect to the district court’s
failure to hold an evidentiary hearing as a direct appeal of that issue, see
Norman v. Stephens, 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016), and affirm.
COA DENIED; AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-20522 Document: 00515414596 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2020