Derrick Sonnier v. NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional…

1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
______________________
No. 06-70003
______________________
DERRICK SONNIER
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN,
Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division
Respondent - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division
H-04-2385
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(Opinion, 1/22/07 5th Cir., Sonnier v.
Quarterman, 2007 WL 136460)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS,
Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 9, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
It is ordered that the petitioner-appellant’s
Petition for Panel Rehearing is DENIED. In light
of petitioner-appellant’s brief in support of his
petition for rehearing, we have carefully
reconsidered our panel opinion and reiterate that
our denial of a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) is based upon Sonnier’s failure to make a
“substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right,” as required by 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2).
Applying the Supreme Court’s analysis
established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668 (1984), the district court determined that
Sonnier failed to show that his trial counsel
provided ineffective assistance in violation of
the Sixth Amendment. Our panel opinion clearly
held that Sonnier “failed to demonstrate that

-- 2 of 4 --

3
jurists of reason could disagree with the district
court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or
that jurists could conclude that the issues
presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further, as required by the United States
Supreme Court’s interpretation of 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2) in Miller El v. Cockrell.” Sonnier v.
Quarterman, 2007 WL 136460 at *14. As a result,
we denied his request for a COA.
After careful consideration of Sonnier’s brief
in support of his petition for panel rehearing, we
still do not believe that he is entitled to a COA.
“By enacting AEDPA,. . . Congress confirmed the
necessity and the requirement of differential
treatment for those appeals deserving of attention
from those that plainly do not. . . [I]ssuance of
a COA must not be pro forma or a matter of
course.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337

-- 3 of 4 --

4
(2003). Sonnier argues that the panel delved too
deeply into the merits of his ineffective
assistance of counsel claim. However, “[t]he COA
determination under § 2253(c) requires an overview
of the claims in the habeas petition and a general
assessment of their merits.” Id. at 336. And our
threshold inquiry into Sonnier’s ineffective
assistance of counsel claim revealed that
reasonable jurists would not find the district
court’s assessment of his constitutional claim
debatable or wrong. Specifically, no reasonable
jurist would find debatable or wrong that Sonnier
had failed to show prejudice as required by
Strickland.
The petition for rehearing is DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --