UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL LaRAYE HOLMAN, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

JEORLD BRAGGS, Jr., Warden, 

Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 18-5033 

(D.C. No. 4:14-CV-00696-JHP-FHM) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

Petitioner Daniel Holman, an Oklahoma inmate appearing pro se, seeks a 

certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his 

application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1

 For the following reasons, we deny a 

COA and dismiss this appeal. 

 *

This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, 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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and 10th Circuit Rule 32.1. 

1

Because Mr. Holman appears pro se, we construe his filings liberally. See Garza 

v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1201 n.2 (10th Cir. 2010). But we draw the line at taking “on 

the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing arguments and searching the 

record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

September 24, 2018

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

BACKGROUND 

On July 15, 2010, Mr. Holman and Derreon Carter entered Elizabeth Craig’s 

apartment. Ms. Craig testified that she had just returned home from Taco Bell around 

twenty seconds before the two men entered her apartment. Mr. Carter placed a cold, 

sharp object against Ms. Craig’s neck and asked where she kept her money. Ms. Craig 

pointed to her purse and Mr. Holman retrieved her purse and carried it around. 

Mr. Carter then ordered Ms. Craig to take off her clothes and, when she resisted, 

he tried to undress her. Ms. Craig told Mr. Carter to “Please, just let me get you my 

money.” ROA at 385 (quoting Tr. III at 35–36). Mr. Carter allowed Ms. Craig to crawl to 

her purse and she reached inside, pulled out a handgun, and fired multiple shots at 

Mr. Carter and Mr. Holman. Upon hearing the gunshots, Ms. Craig’s boyfriend, Shannon 

Chambers, woke up from the other room and began wrestling with Mr. Carter and 

Mr. Holman. When she had a clear shot, Ms. Craig fired again at Mr. Carter and 

Mr. Holman, hitting Mr. Carter in the back of the head and Mr. Holman in the forehead. 

Mr. Carter died from his injuries. 

Ms. Craig testified she did not know Mr. Carter or Mr. Holman and had never seen 

either of them before they entered her apartment without her consent. However, 

Mr. Holman testified Mr. Carter and Ms. Craig knew each other and that Ms. Craig fired 

the gun after beginning to argue with Mr. Carter. Mr. Holman also testified he did not 

have any weapons on him when he entered Ms. Craig’s apartment and had no intention of 

robbing or sexually assaulting her. 
3 

The jury found Mr. Holman guilty of Felony Murder, Attempted Robbery with a 

Dangerous Weapon, and Attempted First Degree Rape. Mr. Holman filed a motion for a 

new trial, alleging he had newly discovered evidence showing Mr. Carter and Ms. Craig 

knew each other. This evidence consisted of two witnesses claiming to have seen 

Mr. Carter and Ms. Craig together on multiple instances, including one time in 

Ms. Craig’s apartment. The state district court denied Mr. Holman’s motion because the 

evidence came from people he knew before trial and therefore could have been 

discovered prior to trial with due diligence. 

Mr. Holman appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”), 

alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (1) failing to adequately investigate the 

relationship between Mr. Carter and Ms. Craig, (2) presenting an incoherent defense by 

arguing Mr. Carter and Mr. Holman may have entered Ms. Craig’s apartment by mistake, 

and (3) failing to impeach Ms. Craig’s testimony that the robbery started around twenty 

seconds after she came home with an empty Taco Bell wrapper found in her apartment. 

The OCCA remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel 

claims. 

The state district court, applying Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), 

denied Mr. Holman’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. As to the first claim, the 

state district court concluded Mr. Holman’s trial counsel was not deficient because he 

understood the importance of proving Mr. Carter and Ms. Craig had a relationship from 

the beginning and undertook significant investigatory steps by hiring an electronic 

investigator and having Mr. Holman and Mr. Holman’s friends and family search for 
4 

individuals who may be able to testify about that relationship. Additionally, the state 

district court concluded Mr. Holman was not prejudiced even if trial counsel was 

deficient because the two new witnesses had significant credibility problems. 

The state district court also rejected Mr. Holman’s second and third arguments for 

ineffective assistance of counsel. Recognizing “[s]trategic decisions are virtually 

unassailable on appeal,” the state district court concluded the mistaken entry suggestion 

did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. ROA at 186. Similarly, the 

state district court found “the failure to cross-examine [Ms.] Craig about where she ate 

part of her meal[] does not constitute such conduct.” Id. It also concluded neither of those 

alleged errors was prejudicial. 

The OCCA agreed with the state district court, concluding the court did not abuse 

its discretion in its factual findings and correctly determined there was no ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Mr. Holman challenged the OCCA’s decision in a petition for 

habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The federal district court concluded 

Mr. Holman was not entitled to relief under § 2254 because he was unable to show the 

OCCA made an unreasonable determination of the facts or unreasonably applied federal 

law. The federal district court also denied Mr. Holman a COA. Mr. Holman appealed this 

decision, filed an application for a COA with this court, and filed a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis on appeal. 

ANALYSIS 

Because the federal district court declined to issue a COA, we lack jurisdiction to 

consider the merits of any of Mr. Holman’s ineffective-assistance claims unless and until 
5 

we issue a COA of our own. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 327 (2003). And we cannot issue a COA unless we are persuaded that Mr. 

Holman “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard is met only if Mr. Holman can demonstrate “that 

reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . 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, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. 

Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 894 (1983)). “AEDPA’s deferential treatment of state court 

decisions must be incorporated into our consideration of a habeas petitioner’s request for 

COA.” Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935, 938 (10th Cir. 2004). 

If a state court decided a claim on the merits, a federal court cannot grant a writ of 

habeas corpus unless the applicant shows that the state court’s adjudication of the claim 

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable 

application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the 

Supreme Court of the United States; or 

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination 

of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). This “difficult to meet” standard requires a state prisoner to “show 

that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in 

justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law 

beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 

102–03 (2011). 

In order to establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must 

show that “counsel’s performance was deficient” and that “the deficient performance 
6 

prejudiced the defense.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. Because an ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim is a “general standard,” we undertake a “doubly deferential judicial 

review” of the state court’s decision. Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 123 (2009). 

 In his application for a COA, Mr. Holman summarily asserts he was denied 

effective assistance of counsel but fails to provide any facts relating to his claim or 

identify any error made by the federal district court. Mr. Holman does not attack the 

federal district court’s conclusion that the OCCA’s application of Strickland was not 

objectively unreasonable. Nor does he argue the OCCA made an unreasonable 

determination of fact. Even when liberally construing his application, we conclude 

Mr. Holman has failed to “demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district 

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484, and we therefore deny his application for a COA. 

* * * 

Mr. Holman also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. “In order 

to succeed on his motion, an appellant must show a financial inability to pay the required 

filing fees and the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in 

support of the issues raised on appeal.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 

(10th Cir. 1991). Mr. Holman has not met this burden. Except for two conclusory 

sentences generally alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, Mr. Holman failed to 

provide any factual or legal arguments. He therefore has not shown the existence of a 

reasoned, nonfrivolous argument to support his appeal. Accordingly, his motion for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. 
7 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated, we DENY Mr. Holman a COA and DISMISS this appeal. 

His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is also DENIED. 

Entered for the Court 

Carolyn B. McHugh 

Circuit Judge