T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce 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 

### M ay3,2007 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 DAVI D E . RO BI S ON,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 7121 v . Ea s t e rn Di s tr i c to f Ok l a h o ma RO N WARD,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D . C . N o . C I V - 0 3 - 5 7 8 - R A W)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e B RI S CO E , M c KAY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. D avi d E . R obi s on, a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of appea l 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 tr i ctcourt ’ s or der 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 2 8 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. R obi s on has fai l ed t o m ake “ a subst anti al show i ng of the den i al of a c on st i tuti on al ri gh t , ” w e den yhis request 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 ). I . Backg r ound L aw enfor cements us pect ed M r . R obi s on of m anufa ctur i ng m e th a m p h e tam in e a f

ter R o n R y a ls, a lo ss -p re v e n tio n e m p lo y e e a t th e W a l-M a rt in-2-

O km ul gee, O kl ahoma, not i ced hi m pl aci ng ei ghtbot t l es of per oxi de, s ever al gal l ons of ac et one, and tw o cas es of H E E T gas tr eatm enti nt o hi s s hoppi ng carton A pr i l 21, 2000. M r . R y al s i m m edi at el ynot i fi ed O ffi cerM i ke R andol , a mem ber o f th e d is tr ic t a tto rn e y ’s d ru g ta s k fo rc e , o f M r. R o b is o n ’s s u s p ic io u s b e h a v io r. O ffi cerR andol arr i ved att he s t or e s ever al m i nut es aft erthe phone c al l and obs erved M r . R y al s pur chas i ng var i ous i t ems comm onl yus ed i n the pr oduct i on of m e th a m p h e tam in e . A f ter M r. R y a ls le f

t th e sto re , O ffice r R a n d o l fo llo w e d h is b row n p icku p tru ck to a G it -n-G o co n v en ienc e sto re a n d w atch ed w ith b ino cu lars as R obi s on exi t ed the es t abl i s hm entw i th anotherthr ee bott l es of H E E T gas t r eatm ent . O ffi cerR andol t hen fol l ow ed M r . R obi s on t o the r es i dence of cod e fe n d a n t J o h n M c C lu s k ya n d o b s e rv e d h im c a rr yth e ite m s in to th e h o u s e . A ft ers ever al w eeks of s ur vei l l ance , O ffi cerR andol obt ai ned a s ear ch w arr antfort he M cC l us kyhom e. T he s ear ch on A pr i l 27, 2000, turned up var i ous acc out erm ent s of m ethamphet ami ne pr oduct i on, as w el l as s ever al s yr i nges co n tai n ing m etha m p h etam ine. O fficers arres ted M r. M cC lusk yan d T ara W ag n er, bot h r es i dent s of the hous e, form anufa ctur i ng m ethamphet ami ne. M r . R obi s on, w ho arr i ved att he home att he t i m e of the arr es t , w as l at eradded a s a cod e fe n d a n t. Pr i ort o t r i al M r . R y al s r eal i zed thathe knew M r . R obi s on buthad not rec o g n ized h im at W al-M art du e to h is squ ali d ap p ea ran ce . A t tri al bo th M r. R y al s and O ffi cerR andol t es t i fi ed r egar di ng M r . R obi s on’ s W al - M ar tand G i t - n--3-

G o s hoppi ng act i vi t i es . I n addi t i on t o the t es t i m onyof R y al s and R andol , codefe ndant s M cC l as keyand W agnert es t i fi ed thatM r . R obi s on oft en obt ai ned the p rec u rsor c h em icals fo r m etha m p h etam ine p rod u cti o n o n their be h alf. In return forhi s s ervi ces , M r . R obi s on r ece i ved s om e of the pr oduct , w hi ch he us ed or di s t r i but ed. A s a defens e, M r . R obi s on cl ai m ed thatO ffi cerR andol ei therw as m i st aken or l i ed ab ou ti den t i fy i ng M r. R ob i son as t he W al -M artshop per. H e al so c laim e d th a t w h ile h e so m e tim e s p u rc h a se d fo o d item s fo r M r. M c C las k e ya t W a lM a rt , h e h a d n e v e r p u rc h a s e d a n yth in g u s e d to m a n u fa c tu re m e th a m p h e ta m in e . A j ur yconvi ct ed M r . R obi s on of ende avor i ng t o m anufa ctur e met hamphet ami ne in v iolati o n o f O k la. S tat . ti t. 6 3 , § 2 -40 8 (19 7 1 ). M r . R obi s on s et s for t h t he fol l ow i ng gr ounds forr el i ef: 1 . T h e in d e n tific a tio n [ sic ] o f M r. R o b iso n b yR o n n ie R y a ls s h o u ld have be en s uppr es s ed bec aus e i tw as s o t ai nt ed bys ugges t i venes s and con du ci ven ess t o m i si den t i fi cat i on that [pet i t i on er’ s] du e process ri g h ts w e re v io la te d . . . . 2. T he tr i al courtcomm i t t ed pl ai n and hi ghl ypr ej udi ci al err ori n fai l i ng s ua s pont e t o i ns t ructthe j ur yon the extr emel ycar eful s crut i ny r equi r ed i n cons i der i ng the i s s ue of e y ew i tnes s i dent i fac t i on [s i c] w h ere m isi d en ti fica ti o n w as a n esse n ti al pa rto f M r. R o b inso n ’s [sic] d e fe n s e . . . . 3 . T h e ju ryin stru c tio n s w e re fa tallyd e fe c tiv e b e c a u se th e yfa iled to in fo rm th e ju ry o f

a ll o f th e e le m e n ts o f

th e c ri m e . . . . 4. T he pr os ecut ori nj ect ed unfa i rnes s i nt o the tr i al bypr es ent i ng i m pr operr ebut t al t es t i m ony , ar gui ng fac t s noti n evi dence , and a sk in g th e ju ryto p e n a lize M r. R o b iso n fo r e x e rc isin g h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to a ju ry tria l. . . .-4-

5. T he j ur ys houl d have be en i ns truct ed thats even y ear s i m pr i s i onm ent [s i c] , r athert han tw entyy ear s i m pr i s onm ent , w as the mi ni m um for th e c ri m e . . . . 6. C ons i der i ng t he ent i r e r ecor d, M r . R obi s on’ s l ack of a pr i orr ecor d, and the s ent ence gi ven t o hi s m or e cul pabl e co- defe ndant , the s e n te n c e im p o s e d w a s e x c e s s iv e . . . . 7. Fai l ur e t o m ove fors uppr es s i on of the i dent i fi cat i on of M r . R obi s on b y R o n n i e R ya l s , t o r e q u e s ta n i n s tru c t i o n o n e ye w i tn e s s t e s t i m o n y, and t o obj ectt o an i ncompl et e i ns truct i on of the el ement s of the o ffe n s e c h a rg e d c o n s titu te d in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. . . . 8. T he tr i al err or s cumul at i vel ydepr i ved M r . R obi s on of a fai rtr i al and re liab le v e rd ict. A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 5- 21. I I . D i s cus s i on A habea s pet i t i onerm ayappea l t he deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 m ot i on 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 i s appr opr i at e “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade 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 . § 2253( c) ( 2) . I n or dert o m ake s uch a s how i ng, a pet i t i onerm us tdemonstr at e that “r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether. . . the pet i t i on s houl d have be en re so lv e d in a d iffe re n t 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 des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). B e c a u se re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld n o t d iffe r re g a rd in g e a c h o f th e e ig h t issu e s ra ise d b yM r. R o b iso n , w e D E N Y h is r e q u e s tfo rCO A.-5-

A . E y ew i t nes s T es t i m ony ( G round 1) M r . R obi s on chal l enges t he admi s s i on of M r . R y al s ’ s ey ew i tnes s t es t i m ony beca us e M r . R y al s di d notr ecogni ze the defendantatt he t i m e he obs erved hi m at W al - M ar t , and onl yr eal i zed he knew t he defendantaft err ece i vi ng the s ubpoena fort r i al . A tt r i al , M r . R y al s i dent i fi ed M r . R obi s on as t he s hopperhe s aw p u rc h a s in g m e th a m p h e ta m in e p re c u rs o rs th a t d a yin A p ri l. A tr ial co u rt ’s ad m issi o n o f e y ew itn ess id en ti fica ti o n v iolates a d efen d an t’ s r i ghtt o due pr oces s onl yw hen the pr ocedur e byw hi ch the w i tnes s i dent i fi es t he d e fe n d a n t “is so u n n e c e ss a rilysu g g e stiv e th a t itis ‘c o n d u c iv e to irre p a ra b le m i s t aken i dent i fi cat i on. ’ ” G r ubbs v. Hannigan , 9 8 2 F . 2 d 1 4 8 3 , 1 4 9 0 (10 th C ir . 1993) ( quot i ng K irby v . Ill in o is , 4 0 6 U .S . 6 8 2 , 6 9 1 (1 9 7 2 )). F o r in sta n c e , co u rts have found ey ew i t nes s - i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur es unnece s s ar i l ys ugges t i ve w hen a w itn e ss is a sk e d to p ick th e su sp e c t o u t o f a lin e u p o r p h o to a rra yo f in d iv id u a ls w ith s tr ik in g ly d iffe re n t c h a ra c te ri s tic s . Id. If the co u rtfin d s the p roc ed u re unnece s s ar i l ys ugges t i ve, i tt hen cons i der s w hetherundert he t ot al i tyof the c ir c u m s ta n c e s th e id e n tific a tio n w a s re lia b le . Id. at 14 8 9 -90 . T h e c o u rtco n side rs s ever al fac t or s t o det erm i ne the r el i abi l i tyof ey ew i tnes s t es t i m ony , i ncl udi ng t he w i t nes s ’ s abi l i t yt o vi ew t he ac cus ed att he t i m e of the cr i m e, “the w i tnes s ’ degr ee of att ent i on, t he ac cur acyof hi s pr i ordes cr i pt i on of the cr i m i nal , t he l evel of c e r t a i n t yd e mo n s t r a t e d b yt h e wi tn e s s a tt h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n , a n d t h e l e n g th o f t i me-6-

betw een the cr i m e and the conf r ont at i on. ” Id. ( quot i ng Nei lv. B igg ers , 40 9 U. S. 1 8 8 , 1 9 9 -20 0 (19 7 2 )). I n t hi s cas e, M r . R y al s r eal i zed thatM r . R obi s on w as the W al - M ar ts hopper af ter he saw M r. R o b ison ’s na m e o n a su b p o en a tha t neither c o n tai n ed R o b ison ’s pi ctur e nori dent i fi ed hi m as t he W al - M ar ts hopper . T hi s pr ocedur e w as not unnece s s ar i l ys ugges t i ve— i ndeed, i tw as nots ugges t i ve atal l w i thi n the meani ng of ourcas e l aw . C ons equent l y , i tdi d notvi ol at e M r . R obi s on’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o due pr oces s . E ven i f i tw er e s ugges t i ve, M r . R y al s ’ s t es t i m onyw as r el i abl e gi ven the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s . R y al s obs erved M r . R obi s on sh o p p ing fo r at l ea st sev era l m inu tes, d u ri n g w h ich tim e h e c lose lyfo ll o w ed M r. R obi s on’ s act i ons . T hough R y al s di d noti dent i fyM r . R obi s on unt i l m or e than a y earaft erhi s obs ervat i ons , he expr es s ed abs ol ut e ce r t ai ntythatM r . R obi s on w as t he man he obs erved i n W al - M art . B eca us e the i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur e w as not su g g esti v e a n d M r. R y als’s ey ew itn ess testi m o n yw as re li ab le, the d istri ct co u rt d i d n o te r ri n a d m i t t i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y. B . Jury I nst ruct i ons ( G rounds 2, 3, and 5) M r . R obi s on cont ends t hatt he courts houl d have i s s ued su a sp o n te a caut i onaryj ur yi ns t ruct i on r egar di ng ey ew i tnes s t es t i m ony . H e al s o cl ai m s t hat t he courts houl d have i ns t ruct ed the j ur yt hat , i n or dert o convi ct , i tm us tfi nd b o th a sp e c ific in ten t to m a n u fa c tu re m e th a m p h e tam in e a n d a n o v e rt a c t in-7-

fur t her ance of thatcr i m e. Fi nal l y , he ar gues thatthe j urys houl d have be en in stru c ted th a t th e m in im u m se n ten c e fo r h is o ffe n se w a s s e v e n ra th e r th a n tw e n ty y e a rs b e c a u s e th e le g is la tu re c h a n g e d th e m in im u m s e n te n c e p ri o r t o h is tr ia l. M r . Ro b i s o n d i d n o to bj e c tt o a n yo f th e s e i n s tru c t i o n s a ttr i a l . Th e Ok l a h o ma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s ( O C C A ) uphel d the i ns truct i ons underpl ai n err or re v ie w . A s t at e court ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of a s t at e s t atut e “i s a mat t erof s t at e l aw bi ndi ng on t hi s cour t . ” P a rk e r v . Sc o tt , 394 F. 3d 1302, 1319 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . W e w i l l notempl oythe w r i tof habe as corpus t o s et as i de a s t at e convi ct i on “on the bas i s of err oneous j ur yi ns truct i ons unl es s the err or s had the effec tof r ender i ng the tr i al s o fundament al l yunfai ras t o caus e a deni al of a fai rt r i al i n t he cons t i tut i onal s ens e. ” Shaf f erv. Str at t on , 906 F. 2d 506, 508 ( 10t h C i r . 1990) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . W hen det erm i ni ng w hethera j ur yi ns t ruct i on has r ender ed a tr i al fundament al l yunfai r , the ques t i on i s not“w hethert he [c hal l enged] i ns truct i on i s undes i r abl e, err oneous , oreven uni ver s al l ycondemned, butw hetherthe i ns truct i on s o i nfec t ed the tr i al thatthe r es ul t i ng convi ct i on vi ol at es due pr oces s . ” N guyen v . R eynolds , 131 F. 3d 1340, 1 3 5 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). H e re , N guyen ’ s al r eadyhi gh bari s even hi gher , becaus e the defendantfai l ed t o obj ectt o the i ns truct i ons at trial.-8-

T he O C C A det erm i ned thatthe j ur yi ns truct i ons out l i ni ng the el ement s of the o ffen se a n d the s en tenc ing req u ir em en ts co m p li ed w ith stat e law . W e a re b o u n d b yth e O C C A ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f th e O k la h o m a s ta tu te . P arker , 394 F. 3d at 1319. M r . R obi s on has notm ethi s bur den t o s how thatthes e i ns truct i ons ren d ere d h is tri al co n sti tuti o n all yu n fa ir . C . P ros ecut ori al M i s conduct ( G round 4) M r . R obi s on cl ai m s t hathi s t r i al w as unfai rbeca us e the pr os ecut or pr es ent ed i m pr operr ebut t al t es t i m onyand ar gued fa ct s noti n evi dence . H e does n o t , h o we v e r , p o i n tt o a n ys p e c i fi c i n s t a n c e s o f s u c h c o n d u c t . He a l s o c l a i ms t hatt he pr os ecut orm ade unfai r l ypr ej udi ci al r emar ks t o j ur or s w hen he t ol d them t hatbyas s ert i ng hi s r i ghtt o a j uryt r i al , M r . R obi s on w as “thum bi ng hi s nos e” a t t hem. R . vol . 2, T r i al T r . at315. T hi s behavi ordoes notr i s e t o the l evel of prosecutor i al m i scond uct. “[P ]r osecutori al m i scond uct i n a st at e cou rtviol at es a defe ndant ’ s r i ghtt o a fa i rt r i al onl yi f the pr os ecut or ’ s act i ons ‘ s o i nfec t ed the t r i al w i t h unfai r nes 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 . ’ ” N guyen , 131 F. 3d at1358 ( quot i ng D on nell y v. D eC hristoforo , 416 U . S. 637, 643 ( 1974) ) . W e w i l l cons i der“the s tr ength of the evi dence agai ns tt he defendantand deci de w hethert he pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement s pl aus i bl ycoul d have t i pped the s cal es i n favorof the pr os ecut i on. ” C um m i ngs v. E vans , 1 6 1 F . 3 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). W e re v iew th e O C C A ’s d e n ial o f th is c laim o n lyfo r “ u n re a so n a b le-9-

appl i cat i on of the s t andar d. ” B l and v. Si r m ons , 4 5 9 F . 3 d 9 9 9 , 1 0 2 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). In lig h t o f

th e p o w e rf

u l ev id e n c e a g a in st M r. R o b iso n , itw a s re a so n a b le fo r th e O C C A to ru le th at th e p rose cu tor’s rem ark s d id n o t r en d er h is tri al un fa ir . D . Sent enci ng E rror s ( G round 6) M r . R obi s on cont ends t hathi s t w enty - fi ve y ears ent ence i s exce s s i ve beca us e thi s w as hi s fi r s tfel onyconvi ct i on and bec aus e M r . M cC l as key , w ho wa s — a c c o r d i n g t o M r . Ro b i s o n — mo r e c u l p a b l e , r e c e i v e d a l e s s e rs e n t e n c e . “ [ A] s ent ence w i t hi n t he l i m i t s i m pos ed bys t atut e i s nei therexce s s i ve norcruel and unus ual undert he Ei ght h A m endment . ” Un itedS ta tes v . D e la c ru z-S o to , 414 F. 3d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 6 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). M r. R o b iso n ’s tw e n ty -fiv e y e a r se n ten c e fe ll w ith in t he s t atut or yr ange of t w entyy ear s t o l i fe. A nydi s par i tybetw een M r . R obi s on and M r . M cC l as key ’ s s ent ence m aybe expl ai ned byM r . M cC l as key ’ s cooper at i on w i t h l aw enfor cement . A nd w e have expl i ci t l yhel d thatdi s par at e s ent ence s do notvi ol at e the Ei ght h A m endmentw hen one de fenda ntr ece i ves a s ent ence re d u c tio n fo r c o o p e ra tio n w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t. Uni t ed Stat es v. R acks tr aw , 7 F .3 d 1 4 7 6 , 1 4 8 2 -8 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). E . I neffect i ve A s s i s t ance of C ounsel ( G round 7) M r . R obi s on cl ai m s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el on thr ee gr ounds : t r i al couns el di d notm ove t o s uppr es s M r . R y al s ’ s ey ew i tnes s t es t i m ony , di d not re q u e st a c a u tio n a ryju ryin stru c tio n re g a rd in g th e e y e w itn e ss tes tim o n y , an d d id-10-

notobj ectt o t he j ur yi ns t ruct i on thatexpl ai ned the el ement s nece s s aryfor c o n v ictio n . A n in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l cla im re q u ire s M r. R o b iso n to s how t hat“couns el ’ s per form ance w as defi ci ent ” and that“the def i ci ent per form ance pr ej udi ced [ hi s ] defe ns e. ” Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668, 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ). M r . R obi s on fi r s tcont ends thathi s couns el s houl d have obj ect ed t o the a d m iss io n o f

M r. R y a ls’s e y e w itn e ss tes tim o n y . T o p re v a il, h e m u st s h o w b o th t hatt r i al couns el w as defi ci enti n fai l i ng t o obj ectt o the ey ew i tnes s i dent i fi cat i on a n d th a t b u t fo r c o u n s e l’ s fa ilu re , th e re s u lt a t tr ia l w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t. Snow v. Si r m ons , 474 F. 3d 693, 720- 21 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668, 694 ( 1984) ) . I n Snow , tri a l co u n se l d id n o t o bjec t to ey ew i t nes s t es t i m onyfr om t w o w i tnes s es w ho had both pr evi ous l yfai l ed t o pi ck th e d e fe n d a n t o u t o f

a lin e u p . Id. at721. B oth the O C C A and the fe der al habea s cour tdet erm i ned thatt he fa i l ur e t o obj ectt o the admi s s i on of the t es t i m ony cons t i tut ed a tr i al s t r at egys i nce c ouns el att empt ed t o di s cr edi tthe w i tnes s es t hr ough ext ens i ve cr os s - exami nat i on. I n addi t i on, the courti n Snow expr es s ed d o u b t a s to w h e th e r a n o bje c tio n to th e te s tim o n yw o u ld h a v e b e e n s u c c e s s f u l. Id. C o u n sel’s fa il u re in this ca se to o bject t o the a d m issi o n o f M r. R y als’s t es t i m onycan be s i m i l ar l yi nt erpr et ed as a tr i al s tr at egy . M r . R obi s on’ s couns el c r o s s - e x a mi n e d M r . Ry a l s r e g a r d i n g h o w h e k n e w M r . Ro b i s o n a n d h o w h e c a me-11-

t o i dent i fyhi m as t he W al - M arts hopper . A nd w hi l e the courti n Snow expr es s ed uncert ai nt yr egar di ng w hethert he ey ew i tnes s t es t i m onyati s s ue ther e w oul d have been a dm i t t ed overcouns el ’ s obj ect i on, the r ecor d i n thi s cas e makes cl earthat M r. R o b iso n ’s c h a n c e s o f e x c lu d in g R y a ls’s tes tim o n yw e re sle n d e r. M r. R y a ls r ecogni zed M r . R obi s on w i t houtanys ugges t i on fr om l aw enfor cementand under th e to ta lity o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s te s t, h is e y e w itn e s s id e n tific a tio n w a s re lia b le . T r i al couns el w as notdefi ci enti n fai l i ng t o obj ectt o the admi s s i on of the ey ew i t nes s t es t i m ony : t hat“fa i l ur e” w as a del i ber at e tr i al s tr at egyand i n any e v e n t, th e te s tim o n yw a s p ro p e rl ya d m itte d . M r. R o b iso n a lso c laim s in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l b e c a u se h is at t orneyfai l ed to r equ esta cauti on aryj uryi nst ruct i on regar ding ey ew i tness t es t i m ony . M r . R obi s on cannotcl ai m i neffect i ve as s i s t ance on thi s gr ound “unl es s t he fa i l ur e t o r eques ts uch an i ns truct i on r epr es ent [s ] a ‘ s ubs t ant i al vi ol at i on of [hi s ] r i ght s . ’ ” Snow , 474 F. 3d at721 ( quot i ng Sn o w v . S ta te , 876 P . 2 d 2 9 1 , 2 9 5 (O k la. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 )). S u ch a v iolati o n o cc u rs on lyw h en there i s a “ve r ys ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood of m i s i dent i fi cat i on. ” Id . ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . T hough t he courtdi d noti s s ue an i ns truct i on on ey ew i tnes s t es t i m ony i n p art i cular , i tdid i nst ructt he jurythat t o d et erm i ne the credi bil i tyof w i tness t est i m on yi tm aycon si der “the ab i l i tyof the w i tness t o rem em ber and rel at e past occurr ence s , t he means of obs ervat i on, and the oppor tuni tyof know i ng the m a tte rs a b o u t w h ic h th e w itn e s s h a s te s tifie d .” R . v o l. 2 , d o c . 1 3 a t 6 6 .-12-

C o n sid e rin g th e w itn e ss c re d ib ili tyin stru c tio n , d e fe n se c o u n se l’s a m p le oppor tuni t yt o di s cr edi tey ew i t nes s t es t i m onythr ough cr os s - exami nat i on, and the fac tt hatt he pr os ecut i on’ s cas e di d notr es ts ol el yon ey ew i tnes s t es t i m ony , no a d d itio n a l c a u tio n a ry in s tru c tio n re g a rd in g e y e w itn e s s te s tim o n yw a s n e c e s s a ry. S e e Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Th o ma , 7 1 3 F . 2 d 6 0 4 , 6 0 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) (go v ern m en t’ s s t andar d i ns t ruct i ons s uffi ci ent l yfocus ed j ur or s ’ att ent i on on the i s s ues cr i t i cal fo r co n v ict ion ). T h u s, co u n sel’s fa il u re to req u est o n e d id n o t violate M r. R o b is o n ’s ri g h ts . F in a lly , M r. R o b iso n c laim s in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l b e c a u se h is at t or neydi d notobj ectt o t he j ur yi ns truct i on thatout l i ned the el ement s of the o ffen se. T h e c o u rtinstructed the ju rythat itm u st find that the s tat e p rov ed M r. R obi s on, “Fi r s t , know i ngl y/ i nt ent i onal l y ; [s ] econd, endea vor [ed] t o m anufa ctur e; [t ] hi r d, t he contr ol l ed dange r ous s ubs t ance of M ethamphet ami ne. ” R . vol . 2, doc. 1 3 a t 4 3 . It d e fin e d “ e n d e a v o r” a s “ [ a ] system a tic o r c o n tin u o u s e ffo rt to a ttain s om e goal . ” Id . at 44 . M r. R o b ison claim s tha t “en d ea v o r” a n d “a tt em p t” are e q u iv a le n t w o rd s re q u ir in g th e ju ry to fin d th a t h e c o m m itte d a n o v e rt a c t. Fur t her , M r . R obi s on ar gues t hat“know i ngl y/ i nt ent i onal l ym anufa ctur ed” di d not a c c u r a t e l yd e s c r i b e t h e me n t a l s t a t e r e q u i r e d fo rc o n v i c t i o n . Th e OCCA d isa g re e d , fin d in g th a t th e in stru c tio n s p ro p e rlyin fo rm e d th e ju ryo f th e e lem e n tsS in c e M r. R o b iso n ’s c o n v ictio n , the O C C A h a s m a in tain e d th a t “th e re is 1 n o re q u ire m e n t o f

a n o v e rt a c t to c o m p lete th e c rim e ” o f e n d e a v o rin g to m a n u fa c tu re m e th a m p h e ta m in e . Tidm o re v . S ta te , 9 5 P . 3 d 1 7 6 , 1 7 9 ( Ok l a . Cr i m. A pp. 2004) . A ti s s ue i n Ti dm or e w as a j uryi ns truct i on i dent i cal t o the one us ed a t M r. R o b is o n ’s tr ia l. Id . a t 1 7 8 . -13- of endea vor i ng t o m anufa ctur e m ethamphet ami ne. B eca us e the j uryi ns truct i on 1 p ro p e rlyo u tli n e d th e e lem e n ts o f th e c rim e , co u n se l w a s n o t d e ficie n t in fa ili n g to obj ectt o t he i ns t ruct i on. F . C u m u lati v e E rr o r (G ro u n d 8 ) C um ul at i ve err oranal y s i s does notappl yt o the cumul at i ve effec tof none rr o rs . Moor e v. R eynolds , 153 F. 3d 1086, 1113 ( 10th C i r . 1998) . B eca us e the tr ial co u rtco m m itted n o erro rs, there ca n b e n o cu m u lat ive e rror. I I I . C oncl usi on A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY M r . R obi s on’ 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