UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

CHARLES ALFRED ARMAJO, JR., 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL; 

STATE OF WYOMING; NEICOLE 

MOLDEN, Warden of WSP, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

No. 22-8049 

(D.C. No. 2:21-CV-00184-NDF) 

(D. Wyo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________ 

Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Charles Armajo, Jr., proceeding pro se,1

 seeks a Certificate of Appealability 

(COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging 

his conviction in Wyoming state court for second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. We 

deny a COA and dismiss this matter. 

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 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

1

 Because Mr. Armajo proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments liberally, but 

we “cannot take 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 

February 16, 2023

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-8049 Document: 010110813811 Date Filed: 02/16/2023 Page: 1
2 

BACKGROUND 

A Wyoming jury convicted Mr. Armajo of sexual abuse of a child in the second 

degree. The victim, ZL, was his fifteen-year-old stepdaughter. Mr. Armajo is a Native 

American. The state alleged Mr. Armajo inappropriately touched ZL in October 2018 

when he performed a ceremony in connection with ZL’s first hunting trip. ZL informed a 

school counselor the day after the ceremony that Mr. Armajo touched her inappropriately. 

The school counselor reported this information to law enforcement, which opened an 

investigation ultimately leading to the criminal proceedings against Mr. Armajo. At trial, 

the state’s evidence included testimony from ZL, her mother, the school counselor, and 

the investigating officers. 

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Mr. Armajo’s conviction on direct appeal. 

See Armajo v. State, 478 P.3d 184, 196 (Wyo. 2020). Mr. Armajo pursued state habeas 

relief before the Wyoming Supreme Court, which denied his petition. He filed his § 2254 

petition in the District of Wyoming and amended that petition twice. 

In his second amended petition, Mr. Armajo brought four claims: (1) violation of 

his First Amendment rights to practice his religion (i.e., ceremonial/healing rites), 

(2) ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) at trial, (3) IAC on appeal, and (4) denial of 

his right to exercise his religion under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

(AIRFA), 42 U.S.C. § 1996. The district court concluded a state procedural bar—

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-14-103—applied to claims (1), (2), and (4) because Mr. Armajo did 

not raise them on direct appeal in his state appellate proceedings. The district court 

Appellate Case: 22-8049 Document: 010110813811 Date Filed: 02/16/2023 Page: 2
3 

further concluded the bar was adequate and independent because it was firmly established 

and regularly followed. 

As to claim (3)—ineffective assistance of state appellate counsel—the court 

analyzed it both as a freestanding habeas claim and as a potential basis to overcome the 

state procedural bar to his other three claims. But the court concluded the claim failed 

because Mr. Armajo did not allege any sufficiently prejudicial errors by counsel. 

Although Mr. Armajo asserted his state appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to 

“present four specific errors that should have been raised,” R. at 109, he never articulated 

what those errors were. This foreclosed him from showing that his counsel’s 

performance was constitutionally deficient or that it resulted in prejudice. The court 

concluded the detailed testimony of ZL and her mother, alone, 

was more than sufficient for a jury to find . . . beyond a reasonable doubt 

that [Mr. Armajo] was guilty of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor 

under Wyoming law. This is true regardless of whether his trial counsel 

failed to raise a Brady violation, the privilege against evidence of spousal 

communications, other allegedly exculpatory evidence from a cell phone 

that was not made available for trial, and inconsistencies among the 

testimony and police reports. 

R. at 210. The court further rejected any IAC claims in connection with appellate 

counsel’s failure to raise issues related to either the First Amendment or AIRFA. 

As the court noted, “[s]tate ‘laws burdening religion are ordinarily not subject to 

strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are neutral and 

generally applicable.’” R. at 211 (quoting Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 

141 S. Ct. 1868, 1876 (2021)). And it explained Mr. Armajo failed to “point to 

any lack of neutrality, lack of general application, or lack of rational relationship 

Appellate Case: 22-8049 Document: 010110813811 Date Filed: 02/16/2023 Page: 3
4 

to a legitimate government interest in protecting children” in Wyoming’s statute 

prohibiting sexual abuse of a child. Id. And the court further explained that 

AIRFA “is simply a policy statement and does not create a cause of action or any 

judicially enforceable individual rights.” R. at 212 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Because the First Amendment and AIRFA claims failed as a matter of 

law, the district court concluded Mr. Armajo’s counsel was not ineffective for not 

raising them on appeal. 

The district court therefore denied Mr. Armajo’s petition with prejudice and 

denied a COA. 

DISCUSSION 

To appeal the denial of his § 2254 petition, Mr. Armajo must obtain a COA by 

“showing 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) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Armajo seeks a COA to raise three issues on 

appeal. In the first issue, he presses his IAC claim as to state appellate counsel. In the 

second, he argues the trial court erroneously instructed the jury. In the third, he asserts 

the district court misapplied AIRFA. No reasonable jurist could debate the district 

court’s resolution of these issues. 

As to the first, although Mr. Armajo now appears to articulate the four issues he 

alleges his appellate counsel missed, he does not show where he did so before the district 

court. And ordinarily “we do not consider an issue that was not adequately raised in the 

Appellate Case: 22-8049 Document: 010110813811 Date Filed: 02/16/2023 Page: 4
5 

federal district court.” Goode v. Carpenter, 922 F.3d 1136, 1149 (10th Cir. 2019). 

Further, to establish IAC, Mr. Armajo must show that “there is a reasonable probability 

that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been 

different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). Here though, the district 

court concluded Mr. Armajo could not make this showing in light of the detailed 

testimony of ZL and her mother. Mr. Armajo offers no basis to reject this conclusion. 

Moreover, Mr. Armajo’s representations to the state habeas court indicate his state 

appellate counsel did raise issues related to his motion for acquittal, sufficiency of the 

evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct. The Wyoming Supreme Court rejected these 

arguments, but Mr. Armajo has not demonstrated that rejection was due to ineffectiveness 

of appellate counsel. We therefore deny a COA as to this issue. 

The second issue for which Mr. Armajo seeks a COA—jury instructions—does 

not appear to bear any relation to the arguments he raised before the district court. We 

therefore do not consider it for the first time on appeal. See Goode, 922 F.3d at 1149. To 

the extent we could look past the preservation issue and construe this argument as an 

extension of his IAC claim as to state appellate counsel, 2 it still fails for want of 

prejudice. To establish entitlement to habeas relief based on a jury instruction, “it must 

be established not merely that the instruction is undesirable, erroneous, or even 

universally condemned, but that it violated some right which was guaranteed to the 

2

 The district court considered the jury-instructions issue in connection with 

Mr. Armajo’s IAC claim as to state appellate counsel, noting also that Mr. Armajo failed 

to identify the allegedly erroneous instruction in his second amended petition. 

See R. at 212–13. 

Appellate Case: 22-8049 Document: 010110813811 Date Filed: 02/16/2023 Page: 5
6 

defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146 (1973) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Armajo does not even identify the allegedly 

defective jury instruction, so he falls well short of showing a Fourteenth Amendment 

violation. We therefore deny a COA as to this issue. 

Finally, although Mr. Armajo includes a challenge to the district court’s rejection 

of his AIRFA argument in his listing of issues on appeal, he does not develop this 

argument in his brief. He has therefore waived it, and we deny a COA as to this issue. 

See Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152, 1175 

(10th Cir. 2002), as modified on reh’g, 319 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2003) (“[I]ssues will be 

deemed waived if they are not adequately briefed. We do not consider merely including 

an issue within a list to be adequate briefing.” (citation omitted)). 

CONCLUSION 

We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We deny Mr. Armajo’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis for failure to show “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). We deny Mr. Armajo’s 

motion for discovery. 

Entered for the Court 

Joel M. Carson III 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 22-8049 Document: 010110813811 Date Filed: 02/16/2023 Page: 6