USA v. Minh Le, No. 19-20867 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-20867 Document: 00515635338 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 12, 2020 No. 19-20867 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Minh Le, also known as Iso, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CV-4460 USDC No. 4:16-CR-157-1 Before Jones, Costa, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Minh Le, federal prisoner # 06182-479, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and he was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. He now requests a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-20867 Document: 00515635338 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2020 No. 19-20867 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He argues that the district court erred by summarily denying his § 2255 motion without giving reasons for its decision, and he contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to object to the Government’s breach of the plea agreement. The record confirms that the district court denied Le’s motion in a brief order that gave no reasons. Though the rules governing § 2255 motions do not explicitly require findings and conclusions, this court has “consistently require[d] district courts to state findings and conclusions for their rulings on motions to vacate sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” United States v. Daly, 823 F.2d 871, 872 (5th Cir. 1987). Without findings of fact or conclusions of law, this court cannot ascertain the reasons for the district court’s rejection of the claims raised in Le’s § 2255 motion or determine whether Le has raised issues on appeal that meet the standard for issuance of a COA, which requires “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that a COA is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of the district court’s entering an order with stated reasons for its denial of Le’s § 2255 motion. Once the district court has supplemented the record on appeal with its reasons, Le may file a brief addressing those reasons. This court will then address the merits of Le’s motion for a COA. 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.
