T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a se , res ju d ica ta a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary19,2007 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 ANT ONI O F ONS E CA - OR T E GA,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. S A M C L IN E , W a rd e n , E llsw o rth Corr e c t i o n a l Fa c i l i ty ; ATTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F K A N SA S,

R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 3199 (D . K a n .) ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - C V - 3 2 4 6 - J T M)

OR DER * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. A nt oni o Fonse ca- O r t ega, a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , seeks a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y( C O A ) t hatw oul d al l ow hi m t o appea l fr om t he di s t r i ct c o u rt ’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(1)(A ). B ec au se w e c o n clud e tha t M r. Fonse ca- O r t ega ha s fai l ed t o m ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght , ” w e deny h is re q u e s t fo r a C O A , a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ).-2- Backg r ound A ft ert he van he w as dr i vi ng s truck a movi ng tr ai n, ki l l i ng one of the p asse n g ers in the v an , a K an sas ju ryco n v ict ed M r. F o n sec a-O rt eg a o f in v o lun tary m ans l aught er , aggr avat ed batt ery , r eckl es s dr i vi ng, and tr ans por t at i on of an ope n cont ai nerof al cohol . O n appea l i n s t at e court , he cl ai m ed: 1) t he r eckl es s dr i vi ng convi ct i on w as m ul t i pl i catus of hi s convi ct i on fori nvol unt arym ans l aught erbas ed upon t he comm i s s i on of a D U I ; 2) t he r eckl es s dr i vi ng convi ct i on w as m ul t i pl i catus of hi s convi ct i on foraggr avat ed batt ery ; 3) t he tr i al courterr ed w hen i tfai l ed t o i ns t ructthe j ur yon the l es s eri ncl uded offens e of dr i vi ng under th e in flu e n c e ; 4 ) th e p ro se c u to r c o m m itt e d m isc o n d u c t d u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts byi m pr oper l ynarr ow i ng w hatt he s t at e had t o pr ove and byengagi ng i n i m pr oper bur den s hi ft i ng; and 5) t he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s convi ct i ons fori nvol unt arym ans l aught er , aggr avat ed batt ery , and r eckl es s dr i vi ng. T he K ans as C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed the convi ct i on forr eckl es s dr i vi ng as m ul t i pl i catus butaff

i r m ed the r emai ni ng convi ct i ons and s ent ence s . M r . Fonse caO r t ega then fi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on w i th the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof K ans as , r ai s i ng i m pr operj ur yi ns truct i on, pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct bas ed on s t at ement s m ade dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent s , and i ns uffi ci encyof the e v id e n c e . In a d etail ed M em o ran d u m an d O rde r, the d istri ct co u rtd en ied M r. Fonse ca- O r t ega’ s pet i t i on on al l thr ee gr ounds . Fi r s t , t he di s tr i ctcourtfound that-3-

i tcoul d notr evi ew t he j ur yi ns t ruct i on i s s ue bec aus e “[ t ] he Supr eme C our thas nev er r ecog nized a fede ral con st i tuti on al ri gh tt o a les seri ncluded offense i ns t ruct i on i n non- capi t al cas es . ” Fons eca- O r t ega v. C l i ne , N o. 05- 3246, s l i p op. at4 ( D . K an. M ay10, 2006) ( quot i ng D ocki ns v. Hi nes , 3 7 4 F .3 d 9 3 5 , 9 3 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )). C iti n g th is C irc u it’s “ a u to m a tic non- r evi ew abi l i t y ” rul e forcl ai m s bas ed on a s t at e court ’ s fai l ur e t o gi ve s uch an in s tru c tio n in n o n -c a p ita l c a s e s , s ee D ocki ns , 3 7 4 F . 3 d at 93 8 , the d istri ct co u rt decl i ned t o r evi ew w hethert he tr i al cour ti m pr oper l yexcl uded a j ur yi ns truct i on o n th e les se r in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f d riv in g u n d e r th e in flu e n c e ra th e r th a n m e re ly instructing them o n inv o lun tarym an slau g h ter. Second, t he courtfound thatno pr os ecut or i al m i s conductoccurr ed dur i ng t he closi ng st at em ents . T o w arr ant habeas rel i ef, prosecutor i al m i scond uct m ust have “ s o i nfec t ed the tr i al w i t h unfai rnes s as t o m ake the r es ul t i ng convi ct i on a deni al of due pr oces s . ” Fo n s e c a -O r teg a , N o. 05- 3246, s l i p op. at5 ( quot i ng D ar den v. Wai nw r ight , 477 U . S. 168, 181 ( 1986) ) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T he courtfound thats i nce the pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent s w er e pr oper , t hey di d notcr eat e anydue pr oces s conce rns . A l though the pr os ecut oremphasi zed the i m por t ance of pr ovi ng t hatM r . Fonse ca- O r t ega w as dr i vi ng the ca r , he di d not s t at e thati tw as t he onl yel ementthe s t at e had t o pr ove. Fur ther , the courtfound t hatt he comm ent s t he pr os ecut orm ade r egar di ng the w eakne s s of the evi dence p re s e n te d b yM r. F o n s e c a -O rt e g a w e re re a s o n a b le .M r . Fonse ca- O r t ega a l s o cl ai m s t hathi s i nvol unt arym ans l aught er 1 convi ct i on and r eckl es s dr i vi ng convi ct i on w er e mul t i pl i catus . Si nce the K ans as C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a lre a d yv a c a ted h is c o n v ictio n fo r re c k les s d riv in g , this c laim is m o o t. -4- T h ird , the c o u rt fo u n d th a t th e re c o rd in c lu d e d su fficie n t ev id e n c e to s u p p o r tt h e c o n v i c t i o n . I n o r d e rt o p r e v a i l o n a s u ffi c i e n c yo f th e e v i d e n c e c l a i m, th e c o u rt re q u ire d M r. F o n se c a -O rte g a to sh o w th a t n o “ ra tio n a l trier o f fa c t co u ld have found pr oof of gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” Id. at7 ( quot i ng Jacks on v . Virg in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 (1 9 7 9 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d )) . B eca us e the r ecor d i ndi cat ed fa ct s thatcoul d l ead a r at i onal j ur ort o concl ude that M r . Fonse ca- O r t ega w as t he dr i verof the vehi cl e, w as r eckl es s , and w as undert he i nfl uence of al cohol , t he di s t r i ctcourtfound thatthe evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al w as s uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s convi ct i ons . M r . Fonse ca- O r t ega s eeks t o appea l t he dis t ri ctcou rt ’s den i al of h i s habea s pet i t i on on these sam e t hree groun ds. 1 D i s cus s i on A p ri s o n e r m a ya p p e a l th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n fo r r e lie f

u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 o n ly if

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o r t h is C o u rt fir s t is s u e s a C O A . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( A ) . A C O A w i l l i s s ue “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . I n or der to m a k e su c h a sh o w in g , a p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te 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 i n a di ffe r ent m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to d e se rv e e n c o u ra g e m e n t to-5-

pr ocee d fur t her . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). W e have r evi ew ed cl os el ythe di s tr i ctcour topi ni on and fi nd i t s r eas oni ng so u n d an d it s co n clus ion s co rrect. M r. F o n sec a-O rt eg a’s su b m issi o n to this C o u rt cont ai ns no per s uas i ve ar gum entthatthe pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a d iffe re n t m a n n e r, n o r d o e s h e sh o w th a t th e iss u e s ra ise d w e re a d e q u a te to d e se rv e e n c o u ra g e m e n t to p ro c e e d f u rth e r. W e d o n o t b e liev e th a t re a so n a b le j ur i s t s w oul d fi nd t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i ons debat abl e orw r ong. C oncl usi on A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY M r . Fonse ca- O r t ega’ s r eques tfora C O A and D I SM I SS th is a p p e a l. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge