W e cons true pro sep le a d in g s lib e ra lly. Ledbetterv. Ci t y of Topeka, Kan. , 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 

### A u gu s t1,2006 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 KE VI N L . M c KI NNE Y, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y, AR AP AHOE C O U N T Y ; K E N SA L A Z A R , A t t or ney G ener al of t he St at e of Col or ado, R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 1435 ( D . C ol or ado) ( D. Ct . No . 0 4 - CV- 1 5 2 0 - W DM - P AC)

ORDE R DE NYI NG LE AVE TO P ROCE ED ON APP EAL INF O R M A PA U PER IS , DE NYI NG CE RT I F I CAT E OF AP P EA LA BI 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 , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI 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 er m 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 er m 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. K evi n L . M cK i nney , a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , se e k s a c e rtific a te 1M cK inneyw asconvi cted of attempt ed fir s tdegree murderafterdel iberati on, 2 conspiracyto comm itattempt ed fir s tdegree murderafterdel iberati on, s econd de gree ki dn ap in g , tw o c o unt s o f s e c o n dd e g re e a s s au lt , tw o c o unt s o f a g g rav ate dro b b e ry, c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it ag g rav atedro b b e ryan df irst d e g re e a ss au lt.

- 2- of appe al abi l i t y( C O A ) t o al l ow hi m t o appea l fr om the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or der d e n y in g h is h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( A ) . B eca us e w e conc l ude M cK i nneyhas fai l ed t o m ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s h o wi n g o f

t h e d e n i a l o f

a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t , ” we d e n yh i s r e q u e s tfo ra CO A an d d ism iss his ap p li ca ti o n . 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(2). M cK i nneyw as convi ct ed fol l ow i ng a j ur yt r i al of m ul t i pl e count s s t emm i ng fr om a 1999 arm ed r obberyof a gr ocerys t or e i n A r apahoe C ount y , C ol or ado. 2 H e w a s s e n ten c e d to 2 1 6 y e a rs im p riso n m e n t. T h e C o lo ra d o C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a ffirm e d h is c o n v ictio n a n d th e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ied c e rtio ra ri. M cK inn eythen fil ed a h ab ea s co rpu s p eti ti o n in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof C ol or ado, al l egi ng a due pr oces s vi ol at i on beca us e he w as convi ct ed on evi dence s ei zed a s t he r es ul tof an i l l egal vehi cl e s t op. T he di s t r i ct cour tr efe r r ed the mat t ert o a magi s t r at e j udge, w ho r ecomm ended the pet i t i on be d e n ied b e c a u se M c K in n e yh a d a f u ll an d fa ir o p p o rtu n ityto lit ig a te h is c laim in stat e c o u rt , an d as a resu lt , the c o u rtw as p rec lud ed fro m co n side ri n g the m att er. A f ter re v iew in g M c K in n e y ’s o bjec tio n s, th e d istric t co u rt a d o p ted th e m a g istra te j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on and deni ed the pet i t i on. T he di s t r i ctcour tal s o deni ed M cK i nney ’ s appl i cat i on fora C O A and hi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris .- 3-

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 , 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) . T hi s cour tcan i s s ue a CO A “onl yi f t he appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of t he deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . W her e, as her e, t he di s t r i ctcour thas r ej ect ed t he cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s on t he mer i t s , “[t ] he pet i t i onerm us tdemonst r at e that r eas onabl e j ur i s t s w oul d fi nd t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s as s es s m entof t he cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s debat abl e orw r ong. ” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ). T he di s t r i ctcour tfound t he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n S to n e v . P o w e ll barr ed M cK i nney ’ s cl ai m . 428 U . S. 465 ( 1976) . I n St one , t he C our thel d t hat “w her e the St at e has pr ovi ded an opportuni t yforful l and fa i rl i t i gat i on of a Four t h A m endment cl ai m , t he C ons t i tut i on does notr equi r e thata s t at e pr i s oner be gr ant ed fe der al habea s corpus r el i ef on the gr ound t hatevi dence obt ai ned i n an uncons t i tut i onal s ear ch ors ei zur e w as i nt r oduced a thi s t r i al . ” Id . at 48 1 -82 . In G am bl e v. O klahom a, w e hel d s uch oppor tuni t y“i ncl udes , buti s notl i m i t ed t o, t he pr ocedur al oppor tuni t yt o r ai s e orot herw i s e pr es enta Four t h A m endment c laim ,” a f

u ll an d fa ir e v id e n tiary he a rin g a n d “ re c o g n iti o n a n d a t lea st c o lo ra b le appl i cat i on of t he corr ectFour t h A m endment cons t i tut i onal s t andar ds . ” 583 F. 2d 1 1 6 1 , 1 1 6 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ). I n t hi s cas e, M cK i nneyfi l ed a pr et r i al m ot i on t o s uppr es s , r ai s i ng t he i s s ue of w hethert here w as probab l e cause to st op t he v ehicl e i n w hich he w as a pas s enger . T he t r i al cour thel d an evi dent i ar yhear i ng, dur i ng w hi ch s ever al- 4-

po l i ce offi cers t est i fi ed. T he tr i al cou rtrul ed ther e w as probab l e cause to ar res t M c K in n e ya n d d e n ied th e su p p re ss io n m o tio n . T h e C o lo ra d o C o u rt o f A p p e a ls u p h e ld th e trial c o u rt’s r u lin g , fin d in g “ th e c o m b in a tio n o f fa c ts k n o w n to a ll offi cer s i nvol ved pr ovi ded a s uffi ci entbas i s fort he i nves t i gat or ys t op and s ubs equentarr es tand s ear ch. ” P eopl e v. McK i nney , N o. 00- C A - 1388, s l i p op. at 5 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. J an. 17, 2002) . T he r ecor d cl ear l ydemonst r at es M cK i nneyhad mu l t i p l e o p p o r tu n i t i e s t o f u l l ya n d fa i r l yl i t i g a t e h i s F o u r t h Ame n d me n tc l a i m, and the s t at e court s appl i ed t he corr ectcons t i tut i onal s t andar ds i n rul i ng on t he i s s ue. M cK i nneyhas fai l ed t o s how t hatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s w oul d fi nd t he di s t r i ct c o u r t ’ s a s s e s s m e n to f

h i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m s d e b a t a b l e o rw r o n g . A c c o r d i n g l y, M c K in n e y ’s re q u e s t fo r a C O A is D E N IE D a n d h is a p p lic a tio n is D IS M IS S E D . I n addi t i on, w e agr ee w i t h the di s t r i ctcour tt hatM cK i nneyhas notpr es ent ed a re a so n e d , n o n f

riv o lo u s a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l, an d th u s th is a p p e a l is n o t tak e n in g o o d fa ith . See 28 U . S. C . § 1915( a) ( 3) . M cK i nney ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n f o r ma p a up e ris i s D E N I E D . M cK i nneyi s di r ect ed t o r emi tt he ful l amount of t he fi l i ng fee w i t hin t w entyday s. 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