Case ID: f-appx_36/html/0644-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MURPHY, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frank MEDEL, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Hank GALETKA, Warden; State of Utah; Jan Graham, Attorney General, State of Utah, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 02-4007.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    May 30, 2002.
    Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

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.

This case is before the court on Frank Medel Jr.’s pro se request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”). Medel seeks a COA so that he can appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a). To be entitled to a COA, Medel must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the district court denied the petition on the merits, he can make such a showing by demonstrating “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.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (quotation omitted). This court has closely reviewed Medel’s application for a COA, the parties’ appellate briefs, the district court’s thorough and well-stated order, and the entire record on appeal. Our review demonstrates that the district court’s resolution of Me-del’s petition is not reasonably debatable and that the issues he seeks to present on appeal are not deserving of further proceedings. Accordingly, this court DENIES Medel’s request for a COA and DISMISS this appeal for substantially those reasons set out in the district court’s order dated November 20, 2001. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel.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.