W e cons true pro sep le a d in g s lib e ra lly. Ledbetterv. Ci t y of Topeka, Kan . , 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 

### S e p t e m b e r5,2006 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 O H N N Y D . W A D K I N S, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. A L EST EP; J O H N W . SU TH ER S, A t t or neyG ener al of the St at e of C ol or ado, R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1005 ( D . C ol or ado) ( D . Ct . N o. 04 - c v- 97 3- PSF- O ES)

____________________________ 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 t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See 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 ohnnyD . W adki ns , a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , fi l ed a pe t i t i on for 1 w r i tof habe as corpus pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254. W adki ns w as convi ct ed of t heftfol l ow i ng a j ur yt r i al and s ent ence d as a habi tual cr i m i nal t o l i fe i n pr i s on.C laimO n e - du e p ro c e ss v io latio nb a se do nin c o rre c t in san ityin stru c tio n s; C laim 2 T w o - unkno w ingandun intel l i gentw aiver of ri ghtto tes ti fy ; C l aimT hree - du e process viol ati onw henem ergencyroomphy si ci an w as al l ow ed to give anop inion onW adk ins’ s anity ; C l aimFour- ins uffi ci entevi denceto s upportcharge of pos s es s i on of a w eapon; C laimF ive - e rron eo u s instruc ti o n s reg ard ingp ri o r fe lonyco nv iction s; C laimS ix - co urt e rre dinn o ta l l o win gW a dkin s to c h a l l e n g e c o n s tituti o n a l ityo f p ri o rc o nv i c ti o n s ; Cl a ims S e v e nthro u g hN in e - in e f f e c tiv e a ss istan c eo f

c o un se l.

- 2- A ft erpur s ui ng a di r ectappea l and s t at e pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef, W adki ns s ought r el i ef i n fede r al di s t r i ctcourt . W adki ns r ai s ed ni ne cl ai m s i n hi s pet i t i on. 2 T he magi s t r at e j udge t o w hom t he mat t erw as r efe r r ed r ecomm ended the appl i cat i on be deni ed. T he di s t r i ctcour tadopt ed the r ecomm endat i on, deni ed W a d k in s’ a p p lica tio n fo r w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s, a n d d ism iss e d th e c a se w ith p reju d ice . W a d k in s th e n filed a n o tice o f a p p e a l an d a m o tio n fo r le a v e to p ro c e e d o n a p p e a l in fo rm a p a up e ris ( ifp ). T h e d istric t co u rt d e n ied a c e rtific a te of appe al abi l i t y( C O A ) , fi ndi ng W adki ns had notm ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of t he deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . T he courtal s o deni ed the mot i on t o pr ocee d i f p pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 24( a) ( 3) , fi ndi ng t he appe al w as nott aken i n good fai t h beca us e W adki ns had not“s how n t he exi s t ence of a r eas oned, nonfr i vol ous ar gum enton t he l aw and fa ct s i n s uppor tof t he i s s ues r ai s ed on appe al . ” ( R . D oc. 37 at1. ) W adki ns has fi l ed w i t h t hi s C our tan appl i cat i on fora C O A and forl eave t o pr ocee d ifp . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(1 )(A ); F ED . R. A PP . P . 22 (b) (1) , 24 (a) (5) . W e D E N Y bo t h W adk i ns’ appl i cat i on fora C O A and hi s m ot i on forl eave t o pr ocee d ifp .- 3- D i s cus s i on 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 W adki ns m akes 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. . . t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved [byt he di s t r i ct cour t ] i n a di ffe r entm annerort hatt he i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des er ve encour agementt o pr ocee d fur t her . ” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 483- 84 ( 2000) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs for cl ear errorand i t s l egal conclusi on s de novo . E ngl is h v. C ody , 241 F. 3d 1279, 1 2 8 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T he m agis t rat e j ud ge m et i culousl yrevi ew ed eac h o f W adk i ns’ cl ai m s, s et t i ng for t h t he fa ctual and pr ocedur al bas i s foreac h, di s cus s i ng the r es ol ut i on of e a c h iss u e in th e sta te c o u rts, a n d a n a ly z in g c o n tro lli n g law . T h e m a g istra te j udge conc l uded W adki ns w as notent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde r§ 2254 and r ecomm ended the appl i cat i on be deni ed, and the ca s e be di s m i s s ed w i t h pr ej udi ce. T he di s t r i ctcour tr evi ew ed the ent i r e r ecor d and W adki ns ’ obj ect i ons t o t he r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , t h e n a d o p t e d t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n a n d d i s m i s s e d t h e m a t t e r . We n e e d n o t re p lica te th e th o ro u g h a n a ly sis ; th e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r o f d ism iss a l is n o t r e a s o n a b ly d e b a ta b le . Sl ack , 529 U . S. at484. W adki ns has fai l ed t o m ake a su fficie n t sh o w in g h e is e n tit led to a C O A . A c c o rd in g lyw e D IS M IS S h is- 4-

appl i cat i on. A pr i s oners eeki ng l eave fr om t hi s C our tt o pr ocee d ifp m us ts how “a fi nanci al i nabi l i t yt o payt he r equi r ed fe es , and the exi s t ence of a r eas oned, nonfr i vol ous ar gum enton t he l aw and fa ct s i n s uppor tof t he i s s ues r ai s ed on appea l . ” McIn tosh v. U. S . P a ro le C o m m ’n , 115 F. 3d 809, 812 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) (c itatio n o m itt e d ); D eBardel eben v . Q ui nl an, 9 3 7 F .2 d 5 0 2 , 5 0 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). I n deny i ng W adki n’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d ifp on appea l , t he di s t r i ctcour tfound he had notm ethi s bur den and he l d t he appe al w as nott aken i n good fai t h, pur s uant t o R ul e 24( a) ( 3) . A ft err evi ew i ng W adki ns ’ cont ent i ons and gi vi ng w ei ghtt o t he d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e c is io n , w e a d o p t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s fin d in g . See Coppedge v. Uni t ed Stat es , 369 U . S. 438, 446 ( 1962) . W e D E N Y W adki ns ’ m ot i on t o pr ocee d ifp a n d o rd e r h im to re m it th e f u ll a m o u n t o f

th e filin g fe e w ith in tw e n ty d a y s . W e r emi nd hi m of hi s obl i gat i on t o payt he fi l i ng fee on an appe al t hathas been d is m is s e d . See Ki nnel lv. G r aves , 265 F. 3d 1125, 1129 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( di s m i s s al of an a ppeal does notr el i eve a ppel l antof t he obl i gat i on t o payt he fil ing fe e in f

u ll ). 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