Case ID: f-appx_574/html/0835-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carlis Anthony BALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert PATTON, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-5036.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Aug. 4, 2014.
    Carlis Anthony Ball, Cushing, OK, pro se.
    
      Jay Sehniederjan, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before HARTZ, McKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Carlis Ball seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2254 federal habeas petition. Petitioner is currently serving a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on a charge of first-degree murder. In his federal habeas petition, Petitioner raised several claims for relief, including challenges to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, a Fourth Amendment challenge to the search of his apartment, and several claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The district court denied Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus in a forty-three page opinion that explained in detail why each claim did not entitle Petitioner to relief under federal law.

After thoroughly reviewing Petitioner’s filings and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s resolution of this case. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). For substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of ap-pealability and DISMISS the appeal. 
      
       This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.