Jones v. Davis

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20306

WILLIAM MONTERIAL JONES,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CV-3284

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

A jury convicted William Monterial Jones, Texas prisoner # 1971347, of
aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and being a felon in possession of a
firearm. The trial court sentenced him to 40 years in prison on each conviction,
to run concurrently. The district court denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and
denied him a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his
petition. Jones now moves for a COA from this court, seeking to challenge the

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5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
March 25, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-20306 Document: 00515359679 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2020

No. 19-20306
2
district’s court’s rejection of his sufficiency of the evidence claim and its
determination that federal review was barred by the state court procedural
decision.
For a COA to issue, Jones must make “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). Jones can do so by showing “that reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong,” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, “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). The determination of whether
to grant a COA must be made “without full consideration of the factual or legal
bases adduced in support of the claims.” Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773
(2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Jones has not made the required showing. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.
Accordingly, his motion for a COA is DENIED. Jones’s motion to supplement
the record on appeal and for a copy of the appellate record is likewise DENIED.
We construe Jones’s 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, see Cullen v.
Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181, 185-86 (2011).
COA DENIED; MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT AND FOR A COPY OF
THE RECORD DENIED; AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-20306 Document: 00515359679 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2020