Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d P r a t t ’ s mo t i o n t o p r o c e e d o n a p p e a l i n fo r ma 1 p a u p e ri s . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (a ). 

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

### F e b r u ary8,2007 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 W I LLI AM RA Y PRA TT, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. M A RT Y SI RM O N S, R es pondent- A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 6351 ( D . C. N o. CI V - 04 - 10 70 - F) (W .D . O k la .)

OR DER B efor e B RI S CO E , EBEL , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t W ill iam R a yP ra tt se e k s a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty ( “C O A ”) , s ee 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) , t hatw oul d perm i thi m t o appea l t he di s tr i ct court ’ s deni al of hi s habea s pet i t i on as s er t ed under28 U . S. C . § 2254. T hr ough 1 his hab eas pet i t i on , P rattchall eng ed h i s fi ve O klahom a con vict i on s for fi rs t d e g re e ra p e b yin stru m e n tatio n a n d o n e c o n v ictio n fo r c h ild se x u a l ab u se , all comm i t t ed af

t erform erconvi ct i on of a fel ony , as w el l as t he forty - fi ve- y ear s ent ence s i m pos ed foreac h convi ct i on t o run cons ecut i vel y . I n thi s § 2254 p roc ee d ing , P rattasse rt s a n u m b er o f g rou n d s fo r reli ef, arg u ing : th e tri al co u rt- 2 -

err ed i n admi t t i ng, and defens e couns el w as i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o obj ectt o, evi dence of othercr i m es i nvol vi ng Pr at t ’ s s exual l yabus i ng tw o ot hergi r l s s ever al y e a rs e a rlier ; th e c u m u lativ e e ffe c t o f se v e ra l im p ro p e r p ro se c u to ria l co m m e n ts and othertr i al err or s depr i ved Pr at tof a f undament al l yfai rtr i al ; hi s tr i al att or ney w a s in e ffe c tiv e fo r fa ili n g to file a sp e e d ytrial m o tio n , fa ili n g to a ss ist P ra tt i n h is d e fe n se , fa ili n g to o b tain f u ll d isc o v e ryf

ro m th e S tate , fa ili n g to a ss ist P ra tt w i th m ot i ons he w as fi l i ng pr o s e, fai l i ng t o r eques tthatPr at t ’ s s ent ence s run co n cu rren tl y , an d fa il ing to inv esti g ate a n d p rese n t add it ion al ev iden ce in P ratt ’s d e fe n se ; an d th e trial c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g P ra tt th e o p p o rtu n ity t o m ake a r ecor d befor e the j uryof the w i tnes s es and evi dence Pr at tw ant ed d e fe n s e c o u n s e l to p re s e n t in h is d e fe n s e . Pr attw i l l be ent i t l ed t o a C O A i f he c an make“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) . Pr at tcan make s uch a s how i ng byes t abl i s hi ng that“r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether( or , fort hat m att er , agr ee that ) the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm anneror thatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d f u rt h e r.” S la c k v . M c D a n ie l, 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 3 -8 4 (2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). H ow ever , fors ubs t ant i al l ythe r eas ons s t at ed i n the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand re c o m m e n d a tio n , ad o p ted b yth e d istric t co u rt, w e c o n c lu d e P ra tt h a s fa iled to make thi s s ho w i ng . W e , the r e fo r e , D EN Y hi s mot i on fo ra CO A a nd D I SM I SS thi s appea l . I n l i ghtof that , Pr at t ’ s m ot i ons forabey ance and r ehea r i ng en banc- 3 -

o f h is re q u e s t fo r o ra l a rg u m e n t a n d a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l a re D E N IE D a s m o o t.

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

D avi d M . E bel C i r cui tJ udge