Ruth v. Ray, (10th Cir. 2002)

Text

---

UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

BRYAN LEE RUTH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHARLES RAY(*),

Respondent - Appellee.

No.
name="1">01-6320

(D.C. No. CV-00-79-M)

(W.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT
name="txt2">(2)

Before SEYMOUR, PORFILIO, and

BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and 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.

Petitioner was convicted in Oklahoma state court of one count of

possession of a shotgun while under the supervision of the Oklahoma Department

of Corrections in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 1283(D). Petitioner had been

convicted of murder in Texas in 1978. Because he had previously been convicted

of two or more felonies in addition to the murder conviction, petitioner was

sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment pursuant to Oklahoma's Habitual

Criminal statutes, then Okla. Stat. tit. 21, §§ 51 and 51A.

In this habeas corpus action, petitioner argues that he has been

unconstitutionally sentenced because the state court treated the prior Texas

murder conviction as an element of the crime and also used it to "revitalize" the

prior convictions which would otherwise have been too old to use for

enhancement. Because petitioner fails to make a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the

application for a certificate of appealability (COA) is denied, and this appeal is

dismissed.(1)

The federal magistrate judge, in a thorough and well-reasoned report and

recommendation, recommended the petition be denied. The magistrate judge

refused to revisit the state law questions decided by the OCCA in petitioner's

direct appeal and further found no ineffective assistance of either trial or

appellate counsel sufficient to excuse the procedural default afflicting petitioner's

remaining claims. The district court adopted the report and recommendation and

denied the petition for habeas corpus. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the

district court also denied his "Motion to Set Aside Order, Amend Findings, and to

Grant Relief From Judgment." See R. Vol. I, tab 23.

We have reviewed the report and recommendation adopted by the district

court and agree with it in all respects. Petitioner has, therefore, failed to show

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." See Slack

v. McDaniel, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1603-04 (2000) (quotation omitted). Petitioner has

thus failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right"

as required before COA may issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

The application for COA is DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge

FOOTNOTES

Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.

*. Charles Ray replaced Stephen Kaiser as

Warden, Davis Correctional

Facility in January, 2002.

2. 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.

1. Petitioner requested a certificate of

appealability (COA) in the district

court, but that court apparently did not rule on the request. "Under our

Emergency General Order of October 1, 1996, we deem the district court's failure

to issue a certificate of appealability within thirty days after filing the notice of

appeal as a denial of the certificate." United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187,

1193 n.3 (10th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 943 (2001).

We, therefore, construe petitioner's notice of appeal as a request for COA. See

id.; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2).

---