USA v. Paul Schlieve, No. 10-41279 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 10-41279 Document: 00512069315 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-41279 Summary Calendar November 30, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. PAUL LYNN SCHLIEVE, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CV-293 Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Paul Lynn Schlieve, federal prisoner # 10930-078, appeals the district court s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which challenged his convictions for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to manufacture or distribute methamphetamine, for possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, for using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during, in relation to, or in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and for possession of an unregistered firearm. We previously granted a certificate of appealability on 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 10-41279 Document: 00512069315 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 No. 10-41279 issue whether the district court erred by dismissing Schlieve s § 2255 claim that a videotape of his traffic stop had been suppressed in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). We review the district court s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. See United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 435 (5th Cir. 2008). As the Government now concedes, the district court misconstrued Schlieve s Brady claim and erred by finding that it could not consider the claim because it had been raised and rejected on direct appeal. Therefore, the district court made no relevant factual findings and did not address the merits of Schlieve s actual claim. We have previously remanded § 2255 cases where the district court entered only a summary denial without providing required findings of fact and conclusions of law, if the record does not conclusively show that the movant was not entitled to relief. See United States v. Edwards, 711 F.2d 633, 633-34 (5th Cir. 1983). Although the instant case differs from Edwards in that the district court s failure to provide reasons resulted from its misunderstanding of the nature of this claim, our review remains hindered by a lack of factual findings and conclusions of law. We also note that the present record does not conclusively show that Schlieve is not entitled to relief on this claim. See Edwards, 711 F.2d at 633-34. We conclude that the district court is best equipped to resolve any relevant factual disputes, such as whether the videotape was properly disclosed prior to a suppression hearing and whether Schlieve was aware of the substance of the videotape because he was present during the search of the vehicle, and to decide whether the videotape contained favorable and material evidence. Therefore, the district court s dismissal of Schlieve s § 2255 motion is VACATED IN PART and this case is REMANDED to the district court for further consideration of his claim that the videotape from Office Edland s vehicle was not properly disclosed prior to the suppression hearing in violation of Brady. 2 Case: 10-41279 Document: 00512069315 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 No. 10-41279 Also, Schlieve has filed several motions on appeal. Previously, we granted the Government s motion to supplement the record on appeal; however, we now GRANT Schlieve s motion for reconsideration and DENY the Government s motion to supplement the record on appeal. Additionally, we GRANT his motion to seal a pending bail motion. However, Schlieve s motions to recompute the time to file his reply brief, for sanctions against the Government, and for release on bail all are DENIED. 3
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.
