After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined *

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 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. 

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 5, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

VINCENT TODD OCHOA,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

LENORA JORDAN,

 Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-6189

(D.C. No. CIV-05-154-R)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before TACHA, Chief Judge, KELLY and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

An Oklahoma jury convicted Vincent Todd Ochoa of first degree murder

and he was sentenced to life without parole. After exhausting his state remedies

on direct appeal and through post-conviction proceedings, he brought this

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. He

now appeals the district court’s denial of his petition. 
-2-

In order to proceed on appeal, Mr. Ochoa requires a certificate of

appealability (COA). Id. § 2253(c). In support of his application for a COA, he

raises the following issues:

(1) the trial court admitted and/or failed to redact a videotaped police

interrogation in violation of Petitioner’s Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights.

(2) the trial court admitted prejudicial and inflammatory photographs

in violation of Petitioner’s Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment

rights.

(3) the admission of other crimes evidence violated Petitioner’s Sixth

and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

(4) the admission of improper opinion testimony violated Petitioner’s

Fourteenth Amendment rights;

(5) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on direct

appeal issues of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and failing to

request an evidentiary hearing; and

(6) cumulative error by trial counsel denied him the right to effective

assistance of counsel and deprived him of a fundamentally fair trial.

Application for Cert. of Appealability, at 1A. 

We may grant Mr. Ochoa a COA only if he “has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). This standard

requires “a demonstration that . . . includes showing that reasonable jurists could

debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) 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). 

Upon careful consideration of Mr. Ochoa’s application for COA, his brief

on appeal, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude, for substantially the
-3-

same reasons stated in the district court’s order of May 24, 2006, and the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation of March 31, 2006, that Mr. Ochoa

has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to a COA under the applicable standards. 

We therefore DENY his application for a COA and DISMISS this appeal. 

Mr. Ochoa’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted. All other

pending motions are denied.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

By:

 Deputy Clerk