Pro sep le a din g sare lib e ra lly c o n s tru e d . 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 

### Ju n e13,2007 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

__________________________ J AM E S T RA YWI CK , P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. L E N O R A J O R D A N , W ar den, R es pondent- A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 7063 (E . D . O k la .) ( D . Ct . N o. CI V - 03 - 17 2- J H P)

____________________________ 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 , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the 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 ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. S e e 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. J ames Tr ayw i ck ( T r ayw i ck) , a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , fi l ed a 1 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 p eti ti o n fo r ha b ea s co rpu s. B ase d o n the m ag istrate’s R ep o rt and R ecomm endat i on, the di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on. T r ayw i ck then fil ed a re q u est fo r a c erti fica te of ap p ea labili ty(C O A ), w h ich th e c o u rtd en ied. In- 2-

th is C o u rt , T ra yw ic k re n e w s h is re q u e s ts fo r C O A . See 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 3 (c )(1 )(A ); F ED . R . A PP . P . 2 2 (b)(1 ), 2 4 (a)(5). B ackgr ound O n A u g u st 1 0 , 2 0 0 1 , T ra yw ick w a s c o n v icte d b ya ju ryo f E n d e a v o rin g to M anufa ctur e C ontr ol l ed D anger ous Subst ance ( M ethamphet ami ne) , A ft erFor m er C onvi ct i ons of Tw o orM or e Fel oni es i n vi ol at i on of O kl ahoma St atut es T i t l e 63, §§ 2- 401, 2- 408. H e w as s ent ence d t o for tyy ear s i m pr i s onm ent . H i s convi ct i on w a s a ffirm e d o n d ire c t ap p e a l b yth e O k lah o m a C o u rt o f C rim in a l A p p e a ls (O C C A ). Tray w ickv . S ta te , N o. F- 2001- 989 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. Sept . 24, 2002) (un p u b li sh ed ). T rayw ick’s A p p li ca ti o n fo r P o st- C o n v ict ion R eli ef in state co u rt w a s d e n ie d in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2 . Tray w ickv . S ta te , N o. C F- 2000- 78 ( O km ul gee C o u n ty D is t. C t. D e c . 1 6 , 2 0 0 2 ) ( u n p u b lis h e d ). T h e O C C A a ffir m e d . Tray w i ck v . S ta te , N o . P C -20 0 3 -25 (O k la. C ri m . A p p . F eb . 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 ) (un p u b li sh ed ). T r ayw i ck then fi l ed a § 2254 pe t i t i on i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor th e E a ste rn D istric t o f O k lah o m a , ch a llen g in g h is c o n v ictio n o n fo u rte e n g ro u n d s: 1) the j uryi ns truct i ons w er e fa t al l ydefe ct i ve, beca us e theyfai l ed t o i nform t he j uryof the el ement s of the cr i m e, 2) t he evi dence i s i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tt he j ury ’ s fi ndi ng thatT r ayw i ck ende avor ed t o m anufa ctur e met hamphet ami ne, 3) t he tr i al courtfai l ed t o i ns tructthe j uryt hata ca s e r el y i ng excl us i vel yon ci r cumst ant i al evi dence m us ti ncl ude r eas onabl e theor i es of i nnocenc e, 4) t he tr i al courterr ed i n fai l i ng t o i ns tructthe j uryt hatpr i ori ncons i s t ents t at ement s cannot- 3-

b e u se d a s s u b sta n tiv e e v id e n c e o f g u ilt , 5 ) th e trial c o u rt e rre d in fa ili n g to fol l ow s t atut orypr ocedur es w hen the j uryhad a que s t i on, 6) phot ogr aphs ad m itted o f T rayw ick w ere m o re p rejud ici al th an p rob ati v e, 7) the tr ial co u rt e rre d in a llo w in g th e trial to b e b if u rc a ted fo r p u rp o se s o f p e n a ltye n h a n c e m e n t, 8) T r ayw i ck’ s s ent ence s houl d be modi fi ed bec aus e extr aneous , pr ej udi ci al i nform at i on fr om the fa ctof pr evi ous convi ct i ons w as i ntr oduced i nt o evi dence , 9) the tr i al court ’ s err or s cumul at i vel ydepr i ved Tra yw i ck of a fai rtr i al and re liab le v e rd ict, 1 0 ) p e tit io n e r’s se n ten c e w a s e x c e ss iv e , co n sid e rin g th e to tality of the ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e, 11) the St at e fa i l ed t o pr ove thatthe pet i t i oner w as gui l tybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , 12) pr os ecut or i al m i s conductdepr i ved the p e tit io n e r o f

a fa ir trial a n d d u e p ro c e ss o f law , 1 3 ) th e p e tit io n e r w a s s u bjec ted to an i l l egal arr es t , t hus t he cha r ges s houl d have be en di s m i s s ed, and 14) pet i t i oner w a s d e n ied h is rig h t to th e e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. O n M ar ch 16, 2006, t he magi s tr at e j udge ent er ed a Repor tand R ecomm endat i on w i th r egar ds t o di s pos i t i on of Tra yw i ck’ s pet i t i on. T he m agi s tr at e’ s s event een pa ge r eportthor oughl yand exha us t i vel yr evi ew ed ea ch of T r ayw i ck’ s cl ai m s and i t s r es ol ut i on bythe s t at e court . I tr ecomm ended T r ayw i ck’ s pet i t i on, i n al l r es pect s , be di s m i s s ed. T he di s tr i ctcourtr evi ew ed T ra yw ick ’s o bjec tio n s to th e m a g istra te’ s re c o m m e n d a tio n a n d d e ter m in e d h e d id notr ai s e anyi s s ue of l aw orfac tw hi ch w oul d al t erthe vi abi l i tyof the re c o m m e n d a tio n . S in c e T ra yw ick sim p lyre u rg e d th e sa m e c o n ten tio n s m a d e to- 4-

the magi s tr at e j udge and othercourt s , the di s tr i ctcour tdet erm i ned hi s obj ect i ons w e re w ith o u t m e rit. T he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed the magi s tr at e j udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on as i t s ow n, deni ed Tra yw i ck’ s Pet i t i on forW r i tof H abea s C o rpu s an d d ism issed the a cti o n . T h ere af ter, itd en ied T rayw ick’s re q u est fo r a C O A . I tdi d, how ever , gr antT r ayw i ck’ s M ot i on forL eave t o Pr ocee d i n f o r ma p a up e ris on appea l . O n J une 15, 2006, T r ayw i ck fi l ed a pro se not i ce of appea l w ith th is C o u rt w h ic h in c lu d e d a n a p p lic a tio n fo r a C O A . F ED . R . A PP . P. 2 2 (b )( 1 ). C e rtifica te o

f Ap p e a la b 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, 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) . W e w i l l i s s ue a CO A onl yi f Tra yw i ck m a k e s 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. . . the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved [byt he di s tr i ct court ] i n a di ffe r entm annerorthatt he 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 ther . ” S la c kv . McD a n iel, 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). I n hi s att ack on the s ubs t ance of hi s t r i al , T r ayw i ck has m a d e n o a rg u m e n t sh o w in g th e d e n ial o f a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t. In e ss e n c e , h e is tr eat i ng hi s appl i cat i on l i ke a di r ectappea l and nothabea s corpus . W e fi nd no i s s ue i n the magi s tr at e’ s thor ough R eportand R ecomm endat i on ort he di s tr i ct- 5-

c o u rt ’s o rd e r o f

d is m is s a l r e a s o n a b ly d e b a ta b le . Slack, 5 2 9 U .S . a t 4 8 4 . T ra yw ic k h a s fa ile d to m a k e a s u ffic ie n t s h o w in g th a t h e is e n title d to a C O A . A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY C O A and D I SM I SS the m att er. 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