UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN MARK ST. JAMES, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS; JOHN W. SUTHERS, Attorney Ge neral of the State of Colorado, Respondents-Appellees. No. 11-1091 (D.C. No. 1:09-CV-01174-PAB) (D. Colo.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before LUCERO , EBEL and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.

Steven Mark St. James, a state prisoner appearing pro se , seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus, brought pursu ant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Ex ercising jurisdiction under 28

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppe l. It may be cited, howev er, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 26, 2011

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 U.S.C. § 1291 and 2253(a), for th e same reasons set forth by th e district court we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND After a jury trial, St. James was convicted in Colorado of sexual exploitation of a child and sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-four years’ im prisonment for the sexual exploitation of a child conviction and twelve years’ imprisonmen t for the sexual assau lt conviction, to be served consecutively. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed St. James’s convictions on direct appeal. People v. St. James , 75 P.3d 1122 (Colo. App. 2002). Then, the Colorado Supreme Court denied St. James’s re quest for certiorari. St. James v. People , No. 03SC127, 2003 WL 219994 50, at *1 (Colo. 2003). In his federal habeas application, St. Ja mes argues that he was prejudiced at trial when the court allowed the pr osecution to introduce evidence that suggested his prior

misconduct. 1 The district court carefully consider ed and rejected that argument, denying the § 2254 motion and denying a COA. On a ppeal, St. James reasserts that argument.

DISCUSSION Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of St. James’s appeal unless he first obtains a COA. To obtain a COA, St. James must

1 In his original habeas application, St. Ja mes asserted four clai ms, but eventually he agreed to dismiss thr ee of those claims. St. James also subsequently a dded two additional claims, but the district court dismissed those claims as procedurally barred. St. James only raises one claim on app eal, and so we will limit our review to that claim.3 make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A petitioner can accomplish this task by establishing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that ma tter, agree that) the pe tition should have been

resolved in a different manner or that the issues presente d were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that St. James failed to meet the Slack standard. We agree with the

district court that St. James failed to show that the admission of ev idence that suggested his prior misconduct violated a constitutional right. Therefore, we remain unconvinced that reasonable jurists could debate that St. James’s § 2254 motion should have been resolved differently.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we DE NY a COA and DISMISS the appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge