`Case 4:12-cv-00031-RAS-DDB Document 36 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 292
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`No. 15-40529
`USDC No. 4:12-CV-31
`USDC No. 4:08-CR-123-1
`
`Plaintiff-Appellee
`
`Defendant-Appellant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`v.
`
`LOUIS SIMPSON,
`
`Appeals from the United States District Court for the
`Eastern District of Texas, Sherman
`
`
`
`O R D E R:
`
`Louis Simpson, federal prisoner # 02297-028, moves for a certificate of
`
`appealability (COA) to challenge the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He
`
`was convicted of seven counts of wire fraud and two counts of aggravated
`
`identity theft and sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 183 months and
`
`three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $1,005,136.18 in
`
`restitution. He raised the following claims in his § 2255 motion: (1) the
`
`Government relied on false testimony; (2) the district court admitted
`
`inadmissible evidence and imposed an unreasonable sentence; (3) the
`
`Government failed to allege and prove essential elements of aggravated
`
`identity theft in counts eight and nine; (4) there was a variance between the
`
`
`
`
`
` Case: 15-40529 Document: 00513345372 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2016
`Case 4:12-cv-00031-RAS-DDB Document 36 Filed 01/19/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 293
`
`No. 15-40529
`
`wire fraud counts in the superseding indictment and the evidence presented at
`
`trial; (5) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for wire
`
`fraud; (6) the Government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct; (7) his counsel
`
`was ineffective at trial, sentencing, and on direct appeal; (8) the Government
`
`obtained an indictment without probable cause, based on false testimony, and
`
`without giving proper notice; and (9) he is actually innocent. The district court
`
`denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claims on the merits and his
`
`remaining claims on a procedural ground.
`
`A COA may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial
`
`showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When
`
`a district court has rejected a constitutional claim on procedural grounds, a
`
`COA will be granted only if the applicant demonstrates “that jurists of reason
`
`would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
`
`of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable
`
`whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.
`
`McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). When a district court has rejected a
`
`constitutional claim on the merits, a COA will be granted only if the applicant
`
`“demonstrate[s] that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
`
`assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Id. Simpson fails
`
`to make these showings.
`
`Simpson’s motion for a COA is DENIED.
`
`
`
`_____/s/ Edith Brown Clement_______
` EDITH BROWN CLEMENT
`UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
`
`2
`
`
`
` Case: 15-40529 Document: 00513345373 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2016
`Case 4:12-cv-00031-RAS-DDB Document 36 Filed 01/19/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 294
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`
`
`
`TEL. 504-310-7700
`600 S. MAESTRI PLACE
`NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
`
`FIFTH CIRCUIT
`OFFICE OF THE CLERK
`
`
`
`
`LYLE W. CAYCE
`CLERK
`
`January 18, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. David O'Toole
`Eastern District of Texas, Sherman
`101 E. Pecan Street
`Federal Building
`Room 216
`Sherman, TX 75090-0000
`
`No. 15-40529
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USA v. Louis Simpson
`USDC No. 4:12-CV-31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dear Mr. O'Toole,
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the judgment issued as the mandate.
`
` Sincerely,
`
` LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: _________________________
` James deMontluzin, Deputy Clerk
`
`cc w/encl:
`
`Mr. Grover Glenn Roque-Jackson
`
`Mr. Louis Simpson
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
