Case ID: f-appx_583/html/0872-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SCOTT M. MATHESON, Jr., Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Randy J. RICE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janet DOWLING, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-5079.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Nov. 25, 2014.
    Randy J. Rice, Helena, OK, pro se.
    Jennifer B. Welch, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondent-Ap-pellee.
    Before HARTZ, McKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

SCOTT M. MATHESON, Jr., Circuit Judge.

Pro se petitioner Randy Rice, imprisoned in Oklahoma for state drug crimes, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) for this court to review the district court’s' rulings on the two claims in his request for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (requiring a COA to appeal “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court”).

First, the district court dismissed his claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Second, the court denied his claim alleging that the state district court considering his post-conviction challenge did not follow Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 5.4(A), which calls for findings of fact and conclusions of law. It said this is not a cognizable federal habeas claim.

Because Mr. Rice’s brief does not address either ruling, he has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), which he must to obtain a COA, see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). We therefore deny COA and dismiss this matter. 
      
       This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.