{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-70010-2026-09-15","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-70010-2026-09-15)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-16","fingerprint":"ewai:us:20376f","proof":"sha256:e91f42b6a31ece4a9beee01d813820a4301d6f5da58872f989a0bbc7873a2cf5","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca5-25-70010-2026-09-15","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414","para_415","para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426","para_427","para_428","para_429","para_430","para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434","para_435","para_436","para_437","para_438","para_439","para_440","para_441","para_442","para_443","para_444","para_445","para_446","para_447","para_448","para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457","para_458","para_459","para_460","para_461","para_462","para_463","para_464","para_465","para_466","para_467","para_468","para_469","para_470","para_471","para_472","para_473","para_474","para_475","para_476","para_477"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"for the Fifth Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Juan Raul Navarro Ramirez,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Petitioner—Appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"versus","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Correctional Institutions Division,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Respondent—Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"______________________________","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"for the Southern District of Texas","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"USDC No. 7:18-CV-386","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"______________________________","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Before Stewart, Haynes, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge:","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Juan Raul Navarro Ramirez, a Texas death-row inmate, seeks a","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas corpus petition. He raises two claims on","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"appeal: first, that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"to move his juvenile mental-health records into evidence under the business-","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"records hearsay exception; second, that the state trial court erred in","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"admitting his recorded confession because it was involuntary. Because","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"Fifth Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"FILED","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"September 15, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Lyle W. Cayce","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"Clerk","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"Ramirez has not shown that reasonable jurists could debate the district","paragraph_id":"para_35","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"court’s resolution of either claim, we DENY his application.","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"I.","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"A jury convicted Ramirez of capital murder in 2004 for his role in a","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"multi-victim robbery homicide in Hidalgo County, Texas, involving two","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"competing gangs—locally known as the “Edinburg massacre.”1 The case","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"against him rested, in part, on his own recorded confession, given following","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"a custodial interrogation. In the recorded confession, Ramirez admitted that","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"he was a member of a gang, that he had agreed to participate in a robbery of","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"another gang (to steal their drugs), and that he had been handed a “cuerno","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"de chivo,” wiped of fingerprints, before the robbery because “there might be","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"some people in there . . ., so you gotta put them down.” An investigator","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"testified that “cuerno de chivo” refers to “an AK-47, which uses 7.62 by 39","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"caliber bullets” and that forensics confirmed the bullets recovered from the","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"scene and one victim’s body were 7.62 by 39 caliber. Following a thirteen-day","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"trial, the jury found Ramirez guilty of capital murder after a day of","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"deliberation.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"Ramirez contends that the jury heard little about his background at","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"sentencing, despite an extensive juvenile Texas Youth Commission (TYC)","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"record documenting depression, PTSD, and suicide attempts starting at","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"around age ten, because his trial counsel never admitted them through the","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"1 The jury found Ramirez guilty of two counts of capital murder. On direct appeal,","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"however, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) held—and the State conceded—","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"that only one count could stand because of double jeopardy. Ramirez v. State, No. AP-","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"75,167, slip op. at 10–12, 2007 WL 4375936 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 12, 2007) (not","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"designated for publication). The TCCA otherwise affirmed the jury’s conviction and the","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"trial court’s death sentence. Id. at 1.","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"business-records exception to hearsay.2 The jury sentenced Ramirez to","paragraph_id":"para_66","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"death.","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"The district court, with the assistance of a 164-page Report and","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"Recommendation (R&R) prepared by the magistrate judge, denied","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"Ramirez’s 400-page federal habeas petition, which asserted 19 claims, each","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"with multiple subclaims. The district court also denied a COA. Ramirez now","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"asks us for a COA on only two claims.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"II.","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"A petitioner may appeal the denial of federal habeas relief only if he","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"first obtains a COA under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Gonzales v. Davis, 924","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"F.3d 236, 241 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). To do so, he must make “a","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2); see","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). When the petition was","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"denied on substantive grounds, the petitioner must show “that jurists of","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327.","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"When the petition was denied on procedural grounds, the petitioner must","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (emphasis","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"added). The petitioner bears the burden of showing his entitlement to a","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"COA. Id. at 483 (delineating “what the habeas applicant must show to satisfy","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"the requirements of § 2253(c)”).","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"2 Ramirez was under the supervision of TYC from ages fourteen to eighteen.","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"III.","paragraph_id":"para_96","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"First, Ramirez seeks a COA on Claim 1, his ineffective assistance of","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"counsel claim. He argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"move his juvenile TYC records into evidence under the Texas Rule of","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"Evidence 803(6) business-records exception. According to Ramirez, the","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"State had already authenticated the records as admissible, but counsel instead","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"relied on an expert witness whose testimony was excluded on hearsay","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"grounds pursuant to Texas Rule of Evidence 705(d).3","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"That was not the theory presented in Ramirez’s operative habeas","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"petition. There, Claim 1 alleged that counsel failed to investigate Ramirez’s","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"mental-health, intellectual, developmental, and psycho-social history in the","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"first place. Ramirez concedes as much. He acknowledges that Claim 1 “has","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"evolved throughout the pendency of [his] federal habeas proceedings” and","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"that it “no longer relies on proof of a failed mitigation investigation. Instead,","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"it focuses on trial counsel’s ignorance of a point of law . . . .”","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"Ramirez first presented that new theory in his combined reply to the","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"State’s answer, response to the State’s motion for summary judgment, and","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"cross-motion for summary judgment. When the magistrate judge did not","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"adjudicate his “ignorance-of-the-law-based ineffectiveness claim,” Ramirez","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"sought reconsideration. The district court declined to reconsider, explaining","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"that the business-records theory was first raised “in his reply to","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"Respondent’s Answer and Response to Motion For Summary Judgment and","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"3 Tex. R. Evid. 705(d) (“If the underlying facts or data would otherwise be","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may not disclose them to the jury if their","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion is outweighed by their prejudicial","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"effect. If the court allows the proponent to disclose those facts or data the court must, upon","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"timely request, restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"accordingly.”).","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment” and that “[s]imply, ‘new legal","paragraph_id":"para_128","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"theories and/or factual issues raised for the first time in a reply brief need not","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"be considered on federal habeas review.’ If Petitioner had intended to raise","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"those arguments in his reply brief as a ground for habeas relief, he should have","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"sought leave to amend his petition.” See United States v. Cervantes, 132 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"1106, 1111 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding in a habeas case that a district court did","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"not abuse its discretion in declining to consider an issue first raised in a reply","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"brief where the movant did not seek leave to amend).4","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"Ramirez does not challenge that ruling on appeal. Indeed, he","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"acknowledges that “the magistrate judge [did not] adjudicate []his ignorance-","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"of-the-law-based ineffectiveness claim . . .”5 and that “the factual and legal","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"basis of this claim” was presented “in his Cross-Motion for Summary","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"Judgment.” Yet he asks us to consider the merits of his new theory while","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"ignoring that the district court declined to consider it because it was raised","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"too late. Because Ramirez does not engage the actual basis for the procedural","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"ruling below, he has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"U.S. at 484. We therefore deny a COA on Claim 1.","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"4 Ramirez did not subsequently seek leave to amend, despite his habeas petition’s","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"express reservation of “his right to amend []his petition” and its promise that, “[a]t the","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"appropriate time during these proceedings, Ramirez will present any additional claims,","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"along with complete factual and procedural histories and more thorough briefing on his","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"claims through amendment to the petition.”","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"5 Elsewhere, however, and confoundingly, Ramirez suggests that the magistrate","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"judge did, in fact, adjudicate “this claim” by finding it “unexhausted” and “that Ramirez","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"had not proven the ineffectiveness of state habeas counsel to overcome the claim’s","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"default”—citing the magistrate judge’s analysis of Claim 1(A) at ROA.3386–3387, 3391–","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"3392. Ramirez is mistaken. Claim 1(A) alleged that his state trial counsel was ineffective for","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"failing to investigate Ramirez’s alleged neurodevelopmental disabilities, brain damage, and","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"mental illness. In other words, Claim 1(A) had nothing to do with trial counsel’s failure to","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"apprehend the business-records exception to hearsay.","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"Second, Ramirez seeks a COA on Claim 4(H), which alleged that the","paragraph_id":"para_163","court_paragraph":6},{"text":"state trial court erred by admitting his recorded interrogation statement","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"because it was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Ramirez claimed that","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"he had taken Rohypnol pills on the morning of his arrest and that he agreed","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"to waive his rights and give an audiotaped statement because he “wanted to","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"go back to sleep.” The state trial court held a suppression hearing at which","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"Ramirez and the interrogating officers testified. Ramirez maintained that he","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"had taken Rohypnol and that he “couldn’t make decisions correctly”","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"because he was “intoxicated.” The officers testified that Ramirez was “very","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"cooperative,” did not appear to be intoxicated, and never complained that he","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"was tired or sleepy. The state trial court declined to suppress the confession,","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"crediting the officers’ testimony over Ramirez’s. The TCCA affirmed. State","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"habeas efforts likewise failed. Ex parte Ramirez, Nos. WR–71,401–01 & WR–","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"71,401–02, 2015 WL 6282336, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 14, 2015) (not","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"designated for publication).","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"Ramirez then raised the voluntariness claim in federal court. The","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"magistrate judge found the claim exhausted, in relevant part, and denied it on","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"the merits, consistent with the State’s motion for summary judgment. The","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"magistrate judge found that Ramirez’s “federal habeas claim—like his","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"mirroring state habeas claim—depends on the notion that his testimony at","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"the suppression hearing should be credited over that of the [officers].","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"Petitioner thus fails to show that he is entitled to relief under AEDPA’s6","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"standards.”","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"In his objections to the magistrate judge’s R&R, however, Ramirez","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"presented additional evidence and, based on that evidence, advanced a new","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"exhaustion theory. He pointed to a declaration from codefendant Marcial","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"6 AEDPA refers to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"Bocanegra, which was already in the record but had been offered in support","paragraph_id":"para_194","court_paragraph":7},{"text":"of different claims, and a newly presented, updated report from false-","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"confession expert Dr. Deborah Davis. Bocanegra was the first codefendant","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"arrested, and his original statement to police implicated an unnamed person","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"he called “Lenny”—conduct the State later attributed to Ramirez at trial. In","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"his post-trial declaration dated March 8, 2019, Bocanegra stated that he, not","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"Ramirez, was “Lenny.” Dr. Davis’s updated report—she had previously","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"submitted a report in 2013 state habeas proceedings—concluded that","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"Ramirez had an enhanced vulnerability to suggestion and interrogative","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"pressure, citing brain damage worsened by childhood adversity and a","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"functional cognitive age well below his chronological age at the time of his","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"arrest.","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"Ramirez argued for the first time in his objections that, considered","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"together, this evidence rendered Claim 4(H) significantly different from the","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"claim presented to the state court and therefore unexhausted.7 The district","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"court adopted the magistrate judge’s R&R without addressing Ramirez’s","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"“new” evidence or his new exhaustion argument.","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"Ramirez’s submission of new evidence with his objections was not,","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"standing alone, procedurally improper. A district judge has discretion under","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"7 Ramirez’s incentive for arguing that this new evidence renders Claim 4(H)","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"unexhausted, rather than simply additional support for an already-adjudicated claim, is that","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"unexhausted claims are not entitled to AEDPA deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d),","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"which applies only to claims “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings.”","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"Establishing that the state court never adjudicated the claim as now presented would permit","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"de novo review rather than the deferential review that § 2254(d) otherwise requires.","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"Salazar v. Dretke, 419 F.3d 384, 395 n.19 (5th Cir. 2005). Because Ramirez likely cannot","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"return to state court to exhaust this theory without running afoul of Texas’s bar on","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"successive habeas applications, he would also need to excuse the resulting procedural","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"default, which he attempts to do by invoking the actual-innocence gateway of Schlup v. Delo,","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"513 U.S. 298 (1995).","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)8 to consider such evidence. Freeman v. County of","paragraph_id":"para_228","court_paragraph":8},{"text":"Bexar, 142 F.3d 848, 851–52 (5th Cir. 1998). But Ramirez did more than offer","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"additional evidence in support of the claim considered by the magistrate","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"judge. He used that evidence to advance an entirely new theory of","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"exhaustion—namely, that the claim the magistrate judge had found","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"exhausted and denied on the merits was materially different from the claim","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"presented to the state courts. That theory would have changed the","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"procedural posture of Claim 4(H) and required the district court to consider","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"an issue the magistrate judge had not addressed. Supra note 7.","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"Ramirez now renews that same theory on appeal, arguing that","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"“[r]easonable jurists could find” Claim 4(H) “unexhausted” and faulting","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"the district court for “ignoring [his] arguments that new evidence presented","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"in support of this claim fundamentally strengthened it and thus rendered it","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"unexhausted.” But issues raised for the first time in objections to an R&R are","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"not properly before the district court. United States v. Armstrong, 951 F.2d","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"626, 630 (5th Cir. 1992); Finley v. Johnson, 243 F.3d 215, 219 n.3 (5th Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"2001) (recognizing in a habeas case that “[w]e have held that issues raised","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"for the first time in objections to the report of a magistrate judge are not","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"properly before the district judge”). Because Ramirez’s exhaustion theory","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"was not properly before the district court, “this court will not address” it.","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"Armstrong, 951 F.2d at 630.9 Ramirez has not shown that reasonable jurists","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"could debate the district court’s resolution of Claim 4(H).","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"8 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“The judge may also receive further evidence or","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"9 To be sure, we have held that “[a]n issue raised for the first time in objections to","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"a magistrate judge’s report may be construed as a motion to amend a complaint or","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"petition.” Morrison v. Johnson, 214 F.3d 1350, 2000 WL 634644, at *1 (5th Cir. 2000) (table","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"decision); see also United States v. Riascos, 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996) (“The district court","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"may construe an issue raised for the first time in an objection to a magistrate judge’s report","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"IV.","paragraph_id":"para_261","court_paragraph":9},{"text":"For the foregoing reasons, Ramirez’s application for COA is","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"DENIED.","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"and recommendation as a motion to amend complaint. . . . We review the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"failure to allow such an amendment for abuse of discretion.”). That rule does not assist","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"Ramirez. He has been represented by counsel throughout his federal habeas proceedings,","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"already amended his petition once as a matter of right, and does not argue that the district","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"court abused its discretion by declining to grant further leave to amend Claim 4(H).","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"Haynes, Circuit Judge, dissenting:","paragraph_id":"para_273","court_paragraph":10},{"text":"Movant, Juan Raul Navarro Ramirez, moves for a certificate of","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"appealability (“COA”) to appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"petition. I believe that Ramirez has met the low threshold required to grant","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"his COA application. Because I would grant a COA on both of his claims, I","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"respectfully dissent.","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"I.","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"The standard for issuing a COA is not high—it is a mere threshold","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"inquiry, not a full merits analysis. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"(2003) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) “forbids” full consideration of the","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"underlying factual or legal bases of the claim at issue). To qualify for a COA,","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"a movant must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “When the district court denies a habeas","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least,","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"I am not addressing whether Ramirez would ultimately succeed.","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"Instead, I am looking at the COA which is a low threshold. It “would mean","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"very little if appellate review were denied because the prisoner did not","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"convince a judge, or, for that matter, three judges, that he or she would","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"prevail.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 337. Indeed, importantly, “in capital cases,","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"doubts as to whether a COA should issue must be resolved in favor of the","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"petitioner.” Clark v. Johnson, 202 F.3d 760, 764 (5th Cir. 2000).","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"II.","paragraph_id":"para_302","court_paragraph":11},{"text":"Here, Ramirez was convicted of capital murder under the Texas “law","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"of parties” (Texas Penal Code §§ 7.01 and 7.02) for his role in a robbery","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"homicide when he was eighteen years old. The primary evidence used to","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"convict him was a confession placing him at the scene of the crime and","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"ballistics evidence showing that bullets recovered from the scene matched","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"the type of weapon that Ramirez confessed to bringing there. A co-defendant","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"to the crime, Marcial Bocanegra, initially attributed the actions that Ramirez","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"confessed to—tying up one of the victims and hitting them with a frying","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"pan—to a person named “Lenny.” Bocanegra never identified Ramirez as","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"Lenny and in 2013, he explicitly noted that Ramirez was not Lenny. In 2019,","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"in a sworn declaration, Bocanegra admitted that he, himself, was Lenny.","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"At sentencing, the jury heard very little about Ramirez’s background,","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"despite an extensive juvenile Texas Youth Commission (“TYC”) record","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"documenting depression, PTSD, and suicide attempts starting at around age","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"ten, because his trial counsel never got the materials in front of them. Because","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"the TYC report was not properly admitted into evidence by Ramirez’s trial","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"counsel, the defense expert was prohibited from testifying about its contents","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"and consequently the jury was not allowed to consider this potentially","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"mitigating evidence when recommending the death penalty for Ramirez.","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"III.","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"The district court, with the assistance of a 164-page report and","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"recommendation (“R&R”) prepared by the magistrate judge, denied his","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"400-page habeas petition, which asserted 19 claims, each with multiple","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"subclaims. The district court also denied a COA. Ramirez now asks this court","paragraph_id":"para_329","court_paragraph":12},{"text":"for a COA on only two claims:","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"Claim 1: Trial counsel’s failure to present and explain all","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"readily available mitigating evidence was constitutionally deficient","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"and prejudicial to the outcome of Ramirez’s sentencing proceeding.","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"Claim 4(H): Ramirez’s Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"Amendment rights were violated when the trial court failed to","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"suppress Ramirez’s involuntary statements derived from his police","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"interrogation.","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"First, Ramirez seeks a COA on Claim 1, his ineffective assistance of","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"trial counsel (“IATC”) claim. He argues that his trial counsel was ignorant","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"of the evidentiary rules governing the capital sentencing proceedings and","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"failed to present and explain all readily available mitigating evidence,","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"including Ramirez’s TYC report, to the jury. The magistrate judge divided","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"Ramirez’s IATC claim into two sub-claims: sub-claim 1A was IATC for","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence of his mental","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"impairments, and sub-claim 1B was IATC for failing to investigate and","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"present mitigating evidence of his psycho-social history. Ramirez v. Lumpkin,","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"No. 7:18-CV-386, 2024 WL 4509123, at *45–46, *50 (S.D. Tex. May 31,","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"2024), report and recommendation adopted in part, rejected in part, No. 7:18-CV-","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"0386, 2024 WL 4491822 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2024). The magistrate judge, in","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"his R&R, held that “[s]ub-claim 1A is unexhausted due to state habeas","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"counsel’s withdrawal of its substance—or any issues concerning his","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"ostensible mental impairments—from State Claim 1 [sub-claim 1A’s state","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"counterpart] during the state habeas proceedings.” Id. at *46. The magistrate","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"judge did not conduct a merits analysis of sub-claim 1A. The district judge","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"adopted the magistrate judge’s R&R and held that Ramirez had not proven","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"the ineffectiveness of state habeas counsel to overcome this procedural","paragraph_id":"para_360","court_paragraph":13},{"text":"default. Id. at *50.","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"While an unexhausted claim is ordinarily barred from review, the","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"Supreme Court has allowed federal courts to consider the unexhausted claim","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"if the petitioner’s state habeas counsel was ineffective for not raising the","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"claim in the first place. See Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013); Martinez","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012). Here, reasonable jurists could disagree with the","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"district court’s procedural ruling that Ramirez did not meet his burden under","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"Martinez and Trevino to prove that his state habeas counsel was ineffective","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"for failing to raise this IATC claim. An important point is that throughout his","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"state court proceedings, he alleges that he had an ineffective lawyer so some","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"of this was not raised, which is the point.","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"Under Martinez, a petitioner must show that: (1) “state habeas","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced him under Strickland” and (2)","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"“the underlying IATC claim is ‘substantial,’ meaning it ‘has some merit.’”","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"Tong v. Lumpkin, 90 F.4th 857, 865 (5th Cir. 2024) (first citing Martinez, 566","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"U.S. at 14; and then citing Trevino, 569 U.S. at 423).","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"Under the first prong, Ramirez’s state habeas counsel should have","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"known that not presenting the TYC records to the jury was fatal to Ramirez’s","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"mitigation defense. Some things were raised in the state habeas but failure to","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"raise everything about this argument during state habeas proceedings fell","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"below professional standards for effective counsel and prejudiced Ramirez.","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"Brad Levenson, Ramirez’s lead counsel in his state habeas proceedings noted","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"that state habeas counsel “inexplicably” failed to present trial counsel’s","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"evidentiary blunder. He could not “conceive of an objectively reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"basis for [state habeas counsel’s] failure to identify trial counsel’s evidentiary","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"error and its consequences.” Moreover, Ramirez’s co-defendant and a","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"“captain and leader” of the gang, Humberto Garza, was granted relief in his","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"state habeas proceedings due to his trial counsel’s failure to present similar","paragraph_id":"para_391","court_paragraph":14},{"text":"TYC evidence of his troubled youth. See Ex parte Garza, 620 S.W.3d 801,","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"809–10, 823–26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). Both facts evince that counsel’s","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"decision to withdraw this claim during the state habeas proceedings was not","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"strategic; rather, it amounted to deficient performance by counsel that","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"prejudiced Ramirez and denied him state habeas relief that his similarly","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"situated co-defendant was granted.","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"For the second prong, Ramirez presents this court with substantial","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"evidence about his troubled youth that the jury never had the opportunity to","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"consider due to his trial counsel’s ignorance of the hearsay rules. To show","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"prejudice, “we must ask whether under Texas’s capital sentencing statute,","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"the additional mitigating evidence is so compelling that there is a reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"probability that at least one juror could have determined that because of the","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"defendant’s reduced moral culpability, death is not an appropriate","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"sentence.” Canales v. Davis, 966 F.3d 409, 412 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"modified). Trial counsel’s ignorance of the law led to the exclusion of large","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"amounts of evidence bearing on Ramirez’s psychological history and mental","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"health that could have led jurors to determine that death was not an","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"appropriate sentence. At this juncture, the court need not conclusively","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"decide the merits of the underlying IATC claim, only that it is “substantial”","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"and “has some merit.” Tong, 90 F.4th at 865. Given the prejudicial effect of","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"the exclusion of potentially mitigating information from the jury’s","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"consideration, Ramirez’s underlying IATC claim is substantial and has some","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"merit.","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"Therefore, reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s holding","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"that Ramirez did not meet his burden under Martinez and Trevino to show","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"that his state habeas counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a substantial","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness. Accordingly, a COA should have been","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"issued on Claim 1.","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 14 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"15","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_423","court_paragraph":15},{"text":"Second, Ramirez seeks a COA on Claim 4(H), which alleges that the","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"state trial court erred by admitting his recorded interrogation statement","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"because it was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"Although Ramirez already exhausted this claim in his state and federal","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"proceedings, Ramirez adds new evidence that arguably creates an","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"unexhausted version of his trial court error claim and opens the Schlup actual","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"innocence “gateway” to overcome his procedural default. See Schlup v. Delo,","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"513 U.S. 298, 316 (1995).1 Because I think we should grant the first COA and","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"because he did raise some of this matter in the state court, I think it is","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"appropriate to grant this COA even with the additional information that is","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"very important: a sworn declaration from his codefendant, Bocanegra,","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"regarding the identity of “Lenny” and an updated expert mental health","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"report from Dr. Deborah Davis explaining why Ramirez was particularly","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"vulnerable to making a false confession.","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"Bocanegra had originally identified a person named “Lenny” as the","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"individual who tied up one of the victims and hit them with a frying pan—the","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"same actions Ramirez confessed to. Years later, in 2019, Bocanegra confessed","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"that he is the person described as “Lenny,” and “the actions that [he]","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"attributed to ‘Lenny,’” were actually committed by him (Bocanegra).","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"_____________________","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"1 That Ramirez first raises this argument in his objection to the magistrate judge’s","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"R&R does not end the matter. “The district court may construe an issue raised for the first","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"time in an objection to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as a motion to","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"amend complaint. We review the district court’s failure to allow such an amendment for","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"abuse of discretion.” United States v. Riascos, 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"(citation omitted). Given the nature of the penalty in a capital case, I would have found that","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"the district court abused its discretion in not construing Ramirez’s objection as a motion to","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"amend. Cf. Clark, 202 F.3d at 764 (“[I]n capital cases, doubts as to whether a COA should","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"issue must be resolved in favor of the petitioner.”).","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"No. 25-70010","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"16","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"Next, excerpts from Dr. Davis’s updated findings include that: first,","paragraph_id":"para_456","court_paragraph":16},{"text":"“although [Ramirez] was born with brain damage, this was accelerated by his","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"postnatal adversities[,] making his functional age and abilities far below those","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"implied by his biological age.” Second, “[f]eatures of the childhood of Mr.","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"Ramirez have been clearly associated with [the] four bases of vulnerability [to","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"interrogative influence and false confession].” Third, “the degree of","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"[Ramirez’s] impairment is much greater than previously documented.”","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"Fourth, “[i]t is more than clear that Mr. Ramirez’s intellectual functioning","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"and impairments in executive and neuropsychological functioning would","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"place him at significant risk in police interrogation.” Fifth, “even in the","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"absence of a learning disability, life histories such as that of Mr. Ramirez have","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"been shown to be predictive specifically of false confession[.]” Sixth, “the","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"existing impairments afflicting Mr. Ramirez were exacerbated by his","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"condition during interrogation.”","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"Taken together, the former evidence and the new evidence casts","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"doubt on the veracity of Ramirez’s confession—the primary evidence used","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"against him—and his role in the events that took place. In light of this, it is","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have granted a death","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"penalty in this arena. Accordingly, a COA should be issued on Claim 4(H).","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"* * *","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"Because I would grant a COA on both claims, I respectfully dissent.","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"Case: 25-70010 Document: 92-1 Page: 16 Date Filed: 09/15/2026","paragraph_id":"para_477"}],"word_count":4667,"cites":["537 U.S. 322","529 U.S. 473","513 U.S. 298","569 U.S. 413","566 U.S. 1","924\nF.3d 236","132 F.3d\n1106","419 F.3d 384","142 F.3d 848","951 F.2d\n626","243 F.3d 215","214 F.3d 1350","76 F.3d 93","202 F.3d 760","90 F.4th 857","966 F.3d 409"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"78ce10796f674eeaf290e5d5e415b346c37aa8e9e9adeaaaa0522de4811197d3","source_url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-70010-CV0.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-06T00:59:49.583+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca5-25-70010-2026-09-15","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-70010-2026-09-15","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-70010-2026-09-15","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca5-25-70010-2026-09-15","verification":{"stored_sha256":"78ce10796f674eeaf290e5d5e415b346c37aa8e9e9adeaaaa0522de4811197d3","recomputed_sha256":"78ce10796f674eeaf290e5d5e415b346c37aa8e9e9adeaaaa0522de4811197d3","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-16T21:52:39.163Z"}},"hash":"sha256:e91f42b6a31ece4a9beee01d813820a4301d6f5da58872f989a0bbc7873a2cf5","version":"legal-2026-10-16","expires":"2026-10-17T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-16+legal-2026-10-16+2026-10-16T17:00:05","content_hash":"sha256:e91f42b6a31ece4a9beee01d813820a4301d6f5da58872f989a0bbc7873a2cf5","revalidate_after":"2026-10-16T22:52:39.357Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-70010-2026-09-15","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-70010-2026-09-15"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-70010-2026-09-15"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca5-25-70010-2026-09-15"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca5-25-70010-2026-09-15","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-12713e36179d5825af9cdc74bfa9a2e6","response_hash":"sha256:e91f42b6a31ece4a9beee01d813820a4301d6f5da58872f989a0bbc7873a2cf5"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:46:32.902Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca5-25-70010-2026-09-15&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":20140}}