IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 95-40985
_________________________
L. C. JONES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
GARY L. JOHNSON, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Institutional Division,
Respondent-Appellee
____________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Texas
(694-CV-984)
_____________________________________________
June 10, 1997
Before WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and LITTLE, District
Judge.*
PER CURIAM:**
Petitioner-Appellant L. C. Jones appeals the district court’s
denial of habeas corpus relief sought by Jones in connection with
his jury conviction in a Texas state court on charges of aggravated
*
District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting
by designation.
**
Pursuant to Local 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
assault of a peace officer, for which he was sentenced to forty-
five years imprisonment. Jones seeks to have that conviction and
sentence overturned on grounds of ineffective assistance of
counsel, improper prosecutorial conduct, improper exclusion of
evidence, and insufficienty of the evidence. Jones also filed a
motion for an evidentiary hearing.
On recommendation of the federal magistrate judge, the
district court dismissed Jones’ habeas petition, and Jones timely
filed his notice of appeal. The district court granted a
certificate of probable cause (CPC). Jones’ notice of appeal was
filed and his CPC was granted prior to April 24, 1996, the date on
which the President signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).1 The AEDPA amended 28 USC §
2253(c)(3), providing for issuance, when appropriate, of a
certificate of appealability (COA) in which the issuing court must
indicate the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing
required to obtain such a certificate.2
Although the pre-AEDPA CPC granted to Jones by the district
court did not specifically address each issue advanced by Jones in
his habeas petition——a failure which would ordinarily subject
either a CPC or a COA to remand to the district court for such a
1
Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996).
2
28 USC § 2254(c)(3).
2
treatment3——such is not the case when a state habeas petitioner has
filed an appeal in which the final judgment and also the appeal
were entered before the effective date of the AEDPA.4 Accordingly,
the instant appeal is not subject to the COA requirement and thus
there is no need for us, as a preliminary matter, to determine
whether the CPC granted to Jones prior to the effective date of the
AEDPA meets the specified standard required of a COA. We therefore
proceed to the merits of his appeal.
In that regard, we have carefully reviewed the record on
appeal and the facts and law set forth in the briefs of able
counsel. Without addressing each of the above identified arguments
proffered by Jones in seeking habeas relief, it suffices that we
are satisfied that the disposition of this matter by the district
court in denying habeas relief is free of reversible error and is
thus, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.
3
Muniz v. Johnson, ___ F.3d ___, 1997 WL 265120(5th Cir. May
20, 1997.
4
United States v. Rocha, 109 F.3d 225,229(5th Cir. 1997).
3