FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT DECEMBER 13, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11466 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -024 28 -C V -C A M -1 M A U R I C E F R A N K S , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S T A T E B O A R D O F P A R D O N S A N D P A R O L E S , A N D R E W H A O D A W A Y , C A L V I N D . M O O T I N E , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 13, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

M auri ce F rank s, a G eorgi a pri soner procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct c ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l w i thoutpr e j udi c e of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on f orl a c k of

e xhaus t i on of

hi s s t a t e r e m e di e s . T hi s appe a l i s gove rne d bythe A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f

f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l tyA c tof 1996 ( A E D P A ) , P ub. L . N o. 104- 32, 110 S t a t . 1214 ( 1996) , be c aus e F r anks f i l e d hi s pe t i t i on a f

t e rthe e f f e c t i ve d a te o f th e A E D P A . A ju d g e o f th is C o u rt g r a n te d ac e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility (C O A ) on: “ W hether the di stri ctcourterre d b y c on cl ud i ng thatappel l anthad fai l ed t o e x h au s th i s s t a t e r e me d i e s w i th r e s p e c tt o th e c l a i ms r a i s e d i n h i s 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 h ab e a s c o rp u s p e t i t i o n . ” F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o rth m o r e f

u l l yb e l o w, we a f f i rm. C ar ef ul re vi ew of F rank s’ s app el l at e bri ef re veal s thathe has notaddres se d th e is s u e o n w h ic h th e C O A w a s g r a n te d . I n s te a d , F r a n k s a r g u e s th e m e r its o f h is un derl yi ng cl ai m . U nd erthe A E D P A , appel l at e r evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o the i ss ues s pe c i f i e d i n the C O A . 28 U . S . C . § 2253; M urr a yv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 145 F . 3d 1249, 12 50 -51 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ). H ow ever , F rank s i s apro se l i t i gantand i s thu s e nt i t l ed t o al e ni e nti nt e rpr e t a t i on of hi s a r gum e nt s on appe a l . S e e G J R I nvs . , I nc . v. C o u n ty o f

E s c a m b i a , F l a . , 1 3 2 F . 3 d 1 3 5 9 , 1 3 6 9 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) . Ne v e rth e l e s s , we w il l n o t act as d e f

ac to co u n se l fo r a p ro se li ti g an t. Id . E v en co n stru in g F ra n k s’s br i e f l i be r a l l y , the r e i s no i ndi c a t i on tha the pr e s e nt s a nya r gum e nt s r e ga r di ng the3

i ss ue on appeal . T here fore , F rank s has abando ned the i ss ue on w hi ch w e grant ed the C O A . S e e A tki ns v. S i ngl e t a ry , 965 F . 2d 952, 955 n. 1 ( 11th C i r . 1992) ( c o n c lu d in g th a t a n ap p e lla n t ab a n d o n s a n is s u e n o t a d d r e s s e d o n ap p e a l) . A cc ordi ng l y, as F rank s has show n n o rever si bl e e rr or, the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al o f h is § 2 2 5 4 h ab e a s p e titio n is AF F I RME D.