Johnson v. Hines , 44 F. App'x 434 ( 2002 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 26 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
FREDDIE M. JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 02-6095
v. D.C. No. 01-CV-460-C
REGINALD HINES, Warden; STATE (W.D. Oklahoma)
OF OKLAHOMA,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This is a pro se federal prisoner 28 U.S.C. § 2254 appeal. Mr. Johnson was
convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In his
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
habeas appeal, Mr. Johnson alleges that his sentence is unconstitutional for six
reasons, each of which the magistrate judge addressed in a well-reasoned Report
and Recommendation. On appeal, the district court adopted the magistrate
judge’s report denying the petition for relief. We review the district court’s
factual findings for clear error and “legal conclusions de novo.” Rogers v.
Gibson, 173 F.3d 1278, 1282 (10th Cir. 1999).
Appellant seeks a certificate of appealability. In order for this court to
grant a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To do so, Petitioner
must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that
matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted).
We have carefully reviewed Petitioner’s brief, the district court’s
disposition, the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the record
on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal, or Petitioner’s brief raises
an issue which meets our standards for the grant of a certificate of appealability.
We conclude that we cannot say that reasonable jurists could debate whether “the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner.” Id.Therefore, Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED
-2-
and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-