USA v. Kurtis Lowe, No. 19-10319 (5th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 19-10319 Document: 00515243401 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-10319 December 19, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. KURTIS KEITH LOWE, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CV-112 Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kurtis Keith Lowe, federal prisoner # 97408-071, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and was sentenced in 2015 to 60 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He unsuccessfully pursued 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. Then, almost a year after the dismissal of his § 2255 motion, he filed a motion to compel his former counsel to produce discovery and case file materials. The district court denied that motion, and 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 19-10319 Document: 00515243401 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 No. 19-10319 Lowe has now filed a motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal that denial. Because Lowe is not seeking to appeal the final order in a § 2255 proceeding, his motion for a COA is denied as unnecessary. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Furthermore, Lowe’s motion for discovery in a closed § 2255 proceeding was a “meaningless, unauthorized motion” with no statutory or legal basis. United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of motion on that basis. See id. To the extent that Lowe now attempts to raise any substantive claims regarding his conviction and sentence, we do not consider them. See United States v. Scruggs, 691 F.3d 660, 666 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.