United States v. Rankin ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Case: 20-60254     Document: 00515855910         Page: 1     Date Filed: 05/10/2021
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                            United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    May 10, 2021
    No. 20-60254
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Demetrius S. Rankin,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 1:19-CV-715
    USDC No. 1:06-CR-41-1
    Before Jones, Costa, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Demetrius S. Rankin, federal prisoner # 03266-043, moves for a
    certificate of appealability (COA) from the denial of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    motion challenging the revocation of his supervised release and the sentence
    imposed upon revocation. Rankin asserts that (1) the Government engaged
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
    Case: 20-60254      Document: 00515855910           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/10/2021
    No. 20-60254
    in prosecutorial misconduct at the revocation proceeding; (2) the evidence
    was insufficient to prove that he knowingly possessed a controlled substance;
    (3) the revocation sentence violated due process because his revocation was
    based on insufficient evidence; (4) the district court improperly admitted
    hearsay testimony at the revocation proceeding, which violated his rights
    under the Confrontation Clause; and (5) trial and appellate counsel rendered
    ineffective assistance.
    To obtain a COA, a movant must make “a substantial showing of the
    denial of a constitutional right.” 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel,
    
    529 U.S. 473
    , 483 (2000).          “A [movant] satisfies this standard by
    demonstrating 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). If a district court has rejected
    the claims on their merits, like here, the § 2255 movant “must demonstrate
    that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
    constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack, 
    529 U.S. at 484
    ; see also
    Miller-El, 
    537 U.S. at 338
    . Rankin has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, his COA motion is DENIED. In addition, because
    Rankin fails to make the required showing for a COA on his constitutional
    claims, we do not consider his assertion that the district court erred by
    denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Davis, 
    971 F.3d 524
    , 534-35 (5th Cir. 2020), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 18, 2021)
    (No. 20-7553). Rankin’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
    appeal and to relinquish jurisdiction are also DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-60254

Filed Date: 5/10/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/11/2021