* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAY 23 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

GEORGE MARK WHITE, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. GLYNN BOOHER, Respondent - Appellee. No. 02-7007 (D.C. No. 00-CV-406-S) (Eastern District of Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , McKAY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This case is before the court on George White’s pro se request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”). White seeks a COA so that he can appeal-2-

the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Because White has not “ made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” this court denies his request for a COA and dismisses this appeal. Id. § 2253(c)(2). White was convicted in Oklahoma state court of Atte mpting to Manufacture a Controlled Dangerous Substance (methamphetamine). After exhausting his state remedies, White filed the instant § 2254 habeas pet ition raising the following four claims: (1) his conviction was not supported by suf ficient evidence; (2) his trial was rendered fundamentally unfair because the state court denied his motion to sever his trial from the trial of his co-defendant; (3) the state court erred in refusing to suppress the fruits of a traffic stop o f his truck; and (4) the state court erred in refusing to suppress the fruits of an inve ntory search of the truck. In a thorough and well-stated order, the district court addressed the sufficiency of the evidence and severance questions on the merits and determined that the decision of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denying r elief as to these issues was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable applicationof Supreme Court precedent. See id. § 2254(d). As to White’s claims regarding the sei zure and search of his truck, the district court reviewed the record and d etermined that White had been afforded an opportunity to fully and fairly litigat e these Fourth Amendment claims in Oklahoma state court. Accordingly, White was barred from obtaining-3-

habeas relief on these grounds under the decision o f the Supreme Court in Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). This court may issue White a COA only if he “has ma de a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). He can make such a showing by demonstrating “that reasonab le jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petit ion should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented wer e adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotation omitted). This court has closely review ed White’s application for a COA and appellate brief, the district court’s order , and the entire record on appeal. That review demonstrates that the districtcourt’s resolution of White’s petition is not reasonably debatable and that the i ssues he seeks to present on appeal are not deserving of further proceedings. A ccordingly, we DENYWhite’s request for a COA and DISMISS this appeal for substantially those reasons set out in the district court’s order dated December 27 , 2001. White’s request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is GRANTED

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge