Green v. Patton , 587 F. App'x 503 ( 2014 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 12, 2014
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
BOBBY GREEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 14-6192
v. (D.C. No. 5:13-CV-00756-M)
(W.D. Okla.)
ROBERT C. PATTON, Director DOC,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
After pleading guilty to state drug charges Bobby Green won a partially
suspended sentence and probation. Soon, though, the state alleged that Mr. Green
had committed more drug crimes, violating the terms of his probation and
warranting revocation of his suspended sentence. Mr. Green sought to avoid this
result, arguing that the government’s evidence against him stemmed from a
Fourth Amendment violation and should be suppressed. The state court disagreed
and proceeded to revoke Mr. Green’s suspended sentence. After failing to
overturn this result on appeal in state court, Mr. Green sought habeas corpus
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
relief in federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. But that court eventually
denied Mr. Green’s requested relief, too, as well as his later request for a
certificate of appealability.
Mr. Green now renews his COA request before us, but before we may grant
it he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253. And that he has not done. As the district court explained, the
Oklahoma courts afforded Mr. Green a full and fair opportunity to litigate his
Fourth Amendment claim — and in those circumstances federal courts are
precluded from granting federal habeas relief on Fourth Amendment claims. See
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976). Mr. Green separately contends that
the Oklahoma trial court abused its discretion when it decided to revoke his
suspended sentence in full rather than in part. But Mr. Green failed to pursue this
argument in district court. Neither, in any event, does he seek to explain to us
how the state court’s actions might violate the federal Constitution or laws,
prerequisites to federal habeas relief.
Mr. Green’s request for a COA is denied, as is his motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, and this appeal is dismissed. Mr. Green is reminded that he must
pay the filing fee in full.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-2-