Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    Cleveland v. Sharp, 10th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This order denies Christopher Cleveland's application for a Certificate of Appealability from the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his Oklahoma state court perjury conviction. The district court had denied Cleveland's petition on both substantive and procedural grounds. The appeals court finds that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's assessment or find its analysis wrong. Specifically, Cleveland is not entitled to habeas relief or an evidentiary hearing, as the magistrate judge's report cogently explained the deficiencies in Cleveland's constitutional claims. Accordingly, the appeals court denies Cleveland's application for a COA and dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Cleveland v. Sharp, 10th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    21 views3 pages
    This order denies Christopher Cleveland's application for a Certificate of Appealability from the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his Oklahoma state court perjury conviction. The district court had denied Cleveland's petition on both substantive and procedural grounds. The appeals court finds that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's assessment or find its analysis wrong. Specifically, Cleveland is not entitled to habeas relief or an evidentiary hearing, as the magistrate judge's report cogently explained the deficiencies in Cleveland's constitutional claims. Accordingly, the appeals court denies Cleveland's application for a COA and dismisses the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-12-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 16-6278

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This order denies Christopher Cleveland's application for a Certificate of Appealability from the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his Oklahoma state court perjury conviction. The district court had denied Cleveland's petition on both substantive and procedural grounds. The appeals court finds that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's assessment or find its analysis wrong. Specifically, Cleveland is not entitled to habeas relief or an evidentiary hearing, as the magistrate judge's report cogently explained the deficiencies in Cleveland's constitutional claims. Accordingly, the appeals court denies Cleveland's application for a COA and dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    21 views3 pages

    Cleveland v. Sharp, 10th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This order denies Christopher Cleveland's application for a Certificate of Appealability from the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his Oklahoma state court perjury conviction. The district court had denied Cleveland's petition on both substantive and procedural grounds. The appeals court finds that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's assessment or find its analysis wrong. Specifically, Cleveland is not entitled to habeas relief or an evidentiary hearing, as the magistrate judge's report cogently explained the deficiencies in Cleveland's constitutional claims. Accordingly, the appeals court denies Cleveland's application for a COA and dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    FILED

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    December 5, 2016
    TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court

    CHRISTOPHER CLEVELAND,

    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v. No. 16-6278
    TOMMY SHARP, Warden, (D.C. No. 5:13-CV-01281-F)
    (W.D. Okla.)
    Respondent - Appellee.

    ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

    Before GORSUCH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

    Petitioner Christopher Cleveland is serving a seven-year sentence of

    imprisonment as a result of a perjury conviction in Oklahoma state court. After

    exhausting his state-court remedies, Petitioner filed a pro se habeas petition pursuant

    to 28 U.S.C. 2254 seeking relief from his conviction and sentence. 1 The district

    court carefully reviewed the matter, per a magistrate judges thorough report and

    *
    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.
    1
    We note Petitioner has a long list of prior court filings and is a three
    striker under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The
    PLRA, however, does not apply to 2254 petitions. United States v. Simmonds, 111
    F.3d 737, 744 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding habeas proceedings are not civil actions
    for purposes of 1915), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Hurst, 322 F.3d
    1256, 1261 n.4 (10th Cir. 2003).
    recommendation (R & R), and denied the petition on both substantive and procedural

    grounds. Thereafter, the district court denied Petitioners application for a certificate

    of appealability (COA). Petitioner now renews his application before us. See 28

    U.S.C. 2253(c). Where a district court has rejected a 2254 petitions

    constitutional claims on their merits, the petitioner qualifies for a COA only if he can

    demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district courts assessment of those

    claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Where

    the court has rejected a 2254 petitions claims on procedural grounds, the petitioner

    qualifies for a COA only if he can demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find it

    debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional

    right and the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Id.

    Construing Petitioners pro se filings liberally, we do not see how he can make

    the required showing for a COA here. As grounds for issuance of a COA, Petitioner

    raises the same claims he did in the district court plus onethe district courts failure

    to grant him an evidentiary hearing. But Petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary

    hearing on meritless claims. The R & R cogently explained why Petitioner is not

    entitled to habeas relief, and we will not reinvent the wheel here to explain why

    Petitioner is not entitled to a COA. Suffice to say the district courts analyses and

    resolution of Petitioners constitutional claims ably illustrates why he cannot meet

    the standard for issuance of a COA. No useful purpose would be served by us

    writing anything further.

    2
    Accordingly, Petitioners application for a COA is DENIED and this appeal

    is DISMISSED. Petitioners motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as

    moot.

    Entered for the Court,

    Bobby R. Baldock
    United States Circuit Judge

    You might also like