W e cons true pro sep le a din g slib era lly. L e db e tte rv . Cityo f T o p eka, Ka n ., 318 1 F . 3 d1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 10,200 6 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT T RI M AI NE L AM ONT VI CK , P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t , v. M I C H A E L K . A D D I SO N , W ar den , R es pondent- A ppel l ee . N o. 05- 6362 ( W . D . O kl ahoma ) ( D. Ct . No. CI V- 0 5 - 0 2 3 8 - HE )

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY

AN D D I S M I S S I NG AP P L I CA T I ON B efor e HENR Y , BRI S CO E , and O’ BR I EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T r i m ai ne Lam ontV i ck, a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, fi l ed a pe t i t i on 1 forw r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2254. T he pet i t i on w as r efe rr ed t o a m agi s t r at e j udge w ho r ecomm ended i tbe deni ed. T he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed the- 2-

m agi s t r at e’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on, and deni ed the pet i t i on. T he di s tr i ct cour tal s o deni ed a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty( C O A ) , fi ndi ng V i ck had notm ade

“ a s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t” u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). (R . D o c . 2 9 .) V ick so u g h t lea v e to a p p e a l in fo rm a p a u p e ris , w hi ch appl i cat i on w as gr ant ed. V i ck has appl i ed fora C O A fr om thi s C our t , s eeki ng r ever s al of the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or der , and a r emand foran evi dent i aryhear i ng. B ackgr ound T he part i es ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ct s of thi s cas e, and w e nee d notr epea t t h e m h e r e . V i c k w a s c o n v i c t e d o f fe l o n y m u r d e r , c o n s p i r a c y t o c o m m i ta fe l o n y, t w o count s of r obberyw i t h a fi r earm , tw o count s of as s aul tw i th a dange r ous w eapon, and poi nt i ng a fi r earm atanother . T he O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s r ever s ed one c onvi ct i on of r obberyw i th a fi r earm on doubl e j eopar dy g ro u n d s . Vickv . S ta te , N o . F -2 0 0 3 -2 4 4 (O k la. C rim . A p p . M a r. 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 ). In h is pet i t i on t o t he di s t r i ctcour t , V i ck r ai s ed the s ame i s s ues ar gued i n hi s di r ect appea l , exce ptfort he doubl e j eopar dygr ound on w hi ch he pr evai l ed. T he magi s t r at e j udge i s s ued a tw enty - fourpage r eport , i n w hi ch he e x h a u s tiv e ly re v ie w e d e a c h o f V ic k ’s c la im s a n d its re s o lu tio n b yth e s ta te c o u rt . H e conc l uded V i ck w as notent i t l ed t o r el i ef on a nyof the gr ounds r ai s ed, and r ecomm ended de ni al of the pet i t i on. T he di s tr i ctcour tcons i der ed de novo the gr ounds forr el i ef a s s ert ed byV i ck, and hi s obj ect i ons t o the r eport . T he di s tr i ct- 3-

cour tconcurr ed w i t h t he magi s t r at e j udge’ s “thor ough and w el l - r eas oned anal y s i s , ” adopt ed the r epor tand r ecomm endat i on, and deni ed the pet i t i on for w ri t o f h a b e a s c o rp u s . (R . D o c . 2 2 a t 3 .) C e rtific a te o f

A p p e a lab ili ty A C O A is a ju ri s d ic tio n a l p re -r e q u is ite to o u r r e v ie w . Mi l l er - E lv. C o c kre ll, 53 7 U . S . 32 2, 33 6 (200 3). W e w i l l i ssue a C O A on l yi f V i ck m akes a

“ s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). T o m a k e th is s h o w in g , h e m u st e sta b lish th a t “r e a so n a b le ju rists coul d debat e w hether. . . t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved [bythe di s tr i ct cour t ] i n a di ffe r entm annerort hatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve encour agementt o pr ocee d fur t her . ” S la c kv . McD a n iel, 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . V i ck has done nothi ng m or e than i ncorpor at e byr efe r ence th e a rg u m e n ts m a d e in h is o rig in a l h a b e a s p e tit io n . O th e r th a n a rticu latin g h is di s agr eementw i t h t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on, he has poi nt ed t o no fa c t s n o rma d e a n ya r g u me n ts h o wi n g h e i s e n t i t l e d t o a CO A. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s o rd e r o f d is m is s a l is n o t r e a s o n a b ly d e b a ta b le . Sl ack, 5 2 9 U. S . a t4 8 4 . We DI S M I S S Vi c k ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n fo ra CO A. E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge