USA v. Stephan Hamilton, No. 19-10546 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-10546 Document: 00515408908 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 19-10546 FILED May 7, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. STEPHAN HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CV-122 USDC No. 4:12-CR-249-1 Before SMITH, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Stephan Hamilton, federal prisoner # 45442-177, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to the statutory maximum sentence of 240 months. The district court denied Hamilton’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on the merits without holding an evidentiary hearing. Hamilton now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA). 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-10546 Document: 00515408908 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2020 No. 19-10546 To obtain a COA, Hamilton must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, claims are rejected on the merits, the prisoner must “demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong” or that the issues presented “deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Hamilton fails to make the required showing on his claims that trial counsel was ineffective with respect to his guilty plea and at sentencing. See id. His motion for a COA is therefore denied. Because he has not briefed his district court claim that appellate counsel was ineffective, he has abandoned that claim. See McGowen v. Thaler, 675 F.3d 482, 497 (5th Cir. 2012); see also Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). We construe the motion for a COA with respect to the district court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing as a direct appeal of that issue, see Norman v. Stephens, 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016), and affirm. COA DENIED; 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.
