United States v. Castro, 4 F.4th 345

Adrian Castro pleaded guilty to violent robberies of postal workers, including convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a) and § 924(c); he was sentenced to 552 months, including four concurrent 168-month terms tied to use of a dangerous weapon.
Castro’s conviction became final in 2004; he filed a § 2255 motion years later, arguing Johnson-based tolling for AEDPA’s one-year limit; the magistrate and district court found the motion time-barred and denied relief and a COA.
Castro requested a COA from the Fifth Circuit; a single judge granted a COA that asked only whether the § 2255 motion was timely—i.e., a procedural-only COA that did not identify any constitutional issue.
Both parties conceded that the COA was invalid under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)–(3) and Supreme Court precedent (Gonzalez v. Thaler) because it failed to specify a constitutional issue.
The Fifth Circuit vacated the COA and dismissed the appeal, and refused to issue a new COA on a Davis-based vagueness challenge because Castro did not properly present that claim to the district court and because his § 924(c) sentence rested on the elements clause, not the residual clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of a COA that states only a procedural question (timeliness)	COA invalid; must identify a constitutional issue and should be vacated	COA improper but contended once issued it cannot be vacated	COA invalid under § 2253(c)(2)–(3) and Gonzalez; vacated and appeal dismissed
Whether the court may vacate an invalid COA sua sponte or after issuance	Courts may and should vacate an invalid COA to preserve gatekeeping function	Once issued, a COA cannot be withdrawn or vacated	Circuit may vacate an invalid COA; aligns with majority circuits; vacatur appropriate
Whether to issue a new COA on a Davis (residual-clause vagueness) claim	Castro asked for COA on Davis challenge to § 924(c)(3)(B)	Government opposed; district court never considered Davis; also argued Davis irrelevant because sentence rests on elements clause	Denied: (1) barred because claim not properly presented to district court (Black v. Davis), and (2) Davis inapplicable because Castro was sentenced under the elements clause (§ 924(c)(3)(A))

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012) (COA must indicate the specific constitutional issue; procedural-only COA invalid)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA standards when relief is denied on procedural grounds)
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983) (certificate standard explained; substantial showing requirement)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (interpretation of § 2253(c) substantial-showing standard)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (new-right decision relevant to AEDPA tolling arguments)
United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (held residual clause of § 924(c) void for vagueness)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (nonretroactivity doctrine discussed as analogous to COA gatekeeping)