United States v. Arun Sharma

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20755

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARUN SHARMA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CV-2996

Before HAYNES, GRAVES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Arun Sharma, federal prisoner # 99154-179, moves for a certificate of
appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
challenging his sentence for conspiracy to commit health care fraud and mail
fraud and health care fraud. Sharma raises the following claims: (1) counsel
was ineffective for failing to timely present Sharma with the plea agreement;
(2) counsel was ineffective relative to Sharma’s decision to plead guilty by
(a) failing to inform him of his sentencing exposure, (b) erroneously advising

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5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
February 13, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 18-20755 Document: 00515309073 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2020

No. 18-20755
2
him that the loss calculation would be offset by legitimate services, and
(c) erroneously advising him that $1.5 million would be placed in trust for his
son’s education; and (3) counsel was ineffective at sentencing by failing to
adduce evidence demonstrating an accurate loss amount. He also argues that
he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
To obtain a COA, a petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where a district court
has denied claims on the merits, a petitioner must show “that jurists of reason
could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims
or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327
(2003). Sharma has not met this standard with respect to his merits-based
claims and has therefore not shown an entitlement to a COA. We construe his
motion for a COA with respect to the district court’s 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.
COA DENIED; AFFIRMED.
Case: 18-20755 Document: 00515309073 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2020