Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07047/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07047-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Michael Cody
Appellee
Donald R. Maghe
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DONALD R. MAGHE, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

vs. No. 90-7047 

FEBO 7 1991 

~OBERT L. HOECKFR 

Clerk 

R. MICHAEL CODY, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-40-C) 

( E . D. Okla . ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Petitioner-appellant Donald R. Maghe appeals prose from the 

district court's denial of a certificate of probable cause 

required by 28 u.s.c. S 2253. Petitioner was convicted of murder 

in the first degree in the District Court of Okmulgee County, 

Oklahoma, and was sentenced in 1979 to imprisonment for "the 

remainder of his life." Rec. vol. I, doc. 1 at 6. He asserts 

that this sentence is unconstitutionally excessive because it is 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-7047 Document: 010110098489 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 1 
more severe than the "imprisonment for life" sentence recommended 

by the jury and set forth in the Oklahoma sentencing statute for 

first degree murder. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, S 701.9 (West 

1979). 

Even construing the record, briefs and the petitioner's pro 

se pleadings liberally as required under Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519 (1972), we find no legal basis for petitioner's argument. 

The difference between petitioner's sentence of imprisonment for 

"the remainder of his life" and the statutorily authorized 

sentence of "imprisonment for life" is one of semantics, not 

substance. Petitioner has failed "to make a 'substantial showing 

of the denial of (a] federal right.'" Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 

U.S. 880, 893 (1983) (quoting Stewart v. Beto, 454 F.2d 268, 270, 

n.2 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 925 (1972)). We 

I 

therefore affirm the district court's denial of a certificate of 

probable cause. 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-7047 Document: 010110098489 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 2