UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT 

STEVEN MARK ST. JAMES,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS; JOHN W. 

SUTHERS, Attorney General 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 

 *

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 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

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 Court
2 

U.S.C. § 1291 and 2253(a), for the same reasons set forth by the 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’ imprisonment for the sexual exploitation of a 

child conviction and twelve years’ imprisonment for the sexual assault 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 request for certiorari. St. James v. People, 

No. 03SC127, 2003 WL 21999450, at *1 (Colo. 2003). 

In his federal habeas application, St. James argues that he was prejudiced at trial 

when the court allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence that suggested his prior 

misconduct.1

 The district court carefully considered and rejected that argument, denying 

the § 2254 motion and denying a COA. On appeal, 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. James asserted four claims, but eventually he 

agreed to dismiss three of those claims. St. James also subsequently added two additional 

claims, but the district court dismissed those claims as procedurally barred. St. James 

only raises one claim on appeal, 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 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) 

(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 evidence 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 DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge