United States v. Hamilton

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10546

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STEPHAN HAMILTON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CV-122
USDC No. 4:12-CR-249-1

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

Stephan Hamilton, federal prisoner # 45442-177, pleaded guilty to
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was
sentenced to the statutory maximum sentence of 240 months. The district
court denied Hamilton’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on the merits without holding
an evidentiary hearing. Hamilton now seeks a certificate of appealability
(COA).

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 7, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-10546 Document: 00515408908 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2020

No. 19-10546
2
To obtain a COA, Hamilton must make “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, claims
are rejected on the merits, the prisoner must “demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong” or that the issues presented “deserve encouragement to
proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Hamilton fails to make the required showing on his claims that trial
counsel was ineffective with respect to his guilty plea and at sentencing. See
id. His motion for a COA is therefore denied. Because he has not briefed his
district court claim that appellate counsel was ineffective, he has abandoned
that claim. See McGowen v. Thaler, 675 F.3d 482, 497 (5th Cir. 2012); see also
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). 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: 19-10546 Document: 00515408908 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2020