Debrow v. Evans ( 1999 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 2 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
GEROME LEON DEBROW,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 98-6175
(D.C. No. CIV-97-536-R)
EDWARD L. EVANS, Warden; (W.D. Okla.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO , BALDOCK , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.
After examining petitioner’s brief 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, seeks review of the district court’s
denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before
petitioner can proceed on appeal, he must secure a certificate of appealability
from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Raising the same issues he raised
in the district court, petitioner argues that this court should grant a certificate of
appealability on the following grounds: (1) the magistrate judge failed to address
whether he was denied a direct appeal through no fault of his own; (2) he was
denied his right to counsel during the ten days following his guilty plea; (3) he
did not receive a competency hearing before he pled guilty; and (4) his guilty
plea was not entered voluntarily.
Upon consideration of the record and petitioner’s brief, we conclude
petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional
right. See id. § 2253(c)(2). We DENY petitioner’s request for a certificate of
appealability for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its
memorandum opinion and order filed March 31, 1998, and by the magistrate
-2-
judge in his findings and recommendations filed November 26, 1997, adopted by
the district court on March 31. The appeal is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-3-