Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-06285/USCOURTS-ca10-07-06285-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Billy Dewayne Davis
Appellant
Justin Jones
Appellee

Document Text:

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 14, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BILLY DEWAYNE DAVIS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

JUSTIN JONES,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-6285

(D.C. No. CIV-07-424-R)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before O’BRIEN, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner-Appellant Billy DeWayne Davis requests a certificate of

appealability (“COA”), see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), that would enable him to appeal

the district court's decision denying him habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, from

his Oklahoma conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance. 

Davis has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. 

In his habeas petition, Davis raises several issues with respect to his

conviction: (1) whether the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction;

Appellate Case: 07-6285 Document: 0101410330 Date Filed: 04/14/2008 Page: 1
- 2 -

(2) whether the prosecutor improperly commented on Davis’ right to remain

silent; (3) whether the trial court improperly responded to a jury inquiry; and (4)

whether his sentence is excessive.

Davis will be entitled to a COA if he can make “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right." 28. U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). He can make such

a showing by establishing 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, 483-84 (2000) (quotations

omitted). For substantially the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation, adopted by the district court, we conclude that Davis has

failed to make an adequate showing in this case. We, therefore, DENY Davis’

motion for a COA and DISMISS this appeal. Davis’ motion to proceed IFP is

granted, and we remind him of his obligation to continue making partial payments

until his appellate filing fee is paid in full.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-6285 Document: 0101410330 Date Filed: 04/14/2008 Page: 2