* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 23 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT EDMAN EDWARDS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. LENORA JORDAN, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee. No. 02-6375 (D.C. No. 02-CV-189-C) (W.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , Chief Circuit Judge, McKAY and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
After examining the Petitioner’s brief and appellat e record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral ar gument.-2-

This is a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 prisoner appeal. Mr. Edwards was convicted of assault and battery with a dangerous w eapon, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distr ibute, carrying a firearm after a felony conviction, possession of marijuana, and pos session of drug paraphernalia. In his § 2254 petition, Mr. Edwards sought habeas c orpus relief on the following grounds: (1) the warrant for his arrest lacked sufficient probable cause; (2) the evidence seized pursuant to the arrest shou ld have been suppressed; (3) he should have been granted a mistrial when the state presented evidence not disclosed pursuant to discovery orders of the trial court; (4) his substantive due process rights were violated when certified copies of judgments of former convictions were not presented at the preliminary h earing; (5) the trial court admitted evidence of a prior conviction in the firs t stage of what should have been a bifurcated trial; and (6) ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court denied habeas corpus relief, and Mr. Edwards applie d to this court for a certificate of appealability. In order for this court to grant a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a cons titutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To do so, Petitioner must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) th e petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues p resented were adequate to-3-

deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v . McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotations omitted). We agree with the district court that Mr. Edwards h ad a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims (Grounds One and Two) consistent with Stone v. Powell , 428 U.S. 465 (1976), and that he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief on those grounds. With res pect to Mr. Edwards’ claim that a mistrial should have been granted (Ground Th ree), we agree with the district court that since the state trial court’s d ecision to grant a continuance rather than a mistrial was based on Oklahoma law, t he issue is not cognizable on federal habeas corpus review. We also agree that G rounds Four, Five and Six are procedurally barred. We have carefully reviewed Mr. Edwards’ brief, the district court’s disposition, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal, or Petitioner’s brief raises an issue which meets o ur standards for the grant of a certificate of appealability. Therefore, for substa ntially the same reasons as set forth by the district court in its Order of October24, 2002, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendations, we cannot say “ that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) th e petition should have been resolved in a different manner.” Id.-4-

We DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge