Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

REVISED
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 96-50676.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Timothy ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant.
July 24, 1997.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas.
Before SMITH, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
Timothy Roberts currently is serving a 150-month sentence for
establishing a facility for the manufacture of a controlled
substance, see 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2). On May 22, 1995, Roberts,
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence,
alleging four grounds for relief. On July 29, 1996, the district
court issued an order denying Roberts's motion. Roberts appeals.
Section 102 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act ("AEDPA") of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 1217-18
(1996) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2253), amended 28 U.S.C. § 2253 to
require a certificate of appealability ("COA") before a final order
in a § 2255 action can be appealed. In United States v. Orozco,
103 F.3d 389 (5th Cir.1996), we held that this requirement applies
to § 2255 cases in which the notice of appeal was filed after April
1

24, 1996, the effective date of the AEDPA. See id. at 390-92.
The district court issued Roberts a "certificate of probable
cause." Even construed as a COA, this certificate does not specify
which issues warrant appellate review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3)
(stating that a COA "shall indicate which specific issue or issues
satisfy the showing required"). We have held that, when faced with
a COA that does not specify the issue or issues warranting review,
the proper course is "to remand to allow the district court to
issue a proper COA, if one is warranted." Muniz v. Johnson, 114
F.3d 43, 46 (5th Cir.1997); see also United States v. Youngblood,
116 F.3d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir.1997)(per curiam)(holding that "the
reasoning of Muniz is equally applicable in § 2255 cases").
Our jurisprudence in this regard has been affected by Lindh v.
Murphy, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 2059, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (1997).
There, the Court held that, as a matter of statutory construction,
"the [AEDPA's] amendments to chapter 153" apply only "to such cases
as were filed after the statute's enactment." Id. at 2063.
As § 2253 is a part of chapter 153, this effectively overrules
our jurisprudence applying the newly-amended § 2253 to cases filed
before April 24, 1996.1 Although Shute, Tucker, and Green are §
2254 cases, § 102 of the AEDPA does not differentiate between §
2254 actions and § 2255 motions. Therefore, as we held in United
States v. Carter, 117 F.3d 262, 264 (5th Cir. 1997) Lindh overruled
1See Shute v. Texas, 117 F.3d 233 (5th Cir.1997) (on
rehearing); Tucker v. Johnson, No. 97-20101, 1997 WL 367348, at *2
n. 3 (5th Cir. July 2, 1997) (on petition for rehearing); Green v.
Johnson, 116 F.3d 1115, 1120 (5th Cir.1997).
2

Orozco.2
Consequently, a COA is not needed in the instant case to vest
jurisdiction in this court. See Carter, 117 F.3d at 264. Any
error in the district court's issuance of the "certificate of
probable cause" is now irrelevant. Because this court has
jurisdiction over this appeal, we sua sponte direct that the appeal
be submitted for consideration and action in accordance with the
usual procedures.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2The invocation of Orozco in Youngblood, see 116 F.3d 1113,
1114-15, does not undermine this conclusion. Youngblood post-dates
Lindh but does not mention it. Therefore, we may assume that
Youngblood applies pre-Lindh law and does not purport to settle,
sub silentio, the question of Lindh 's effect on § 2255 motions.
3