W e l iberal lycon strue B razi l l e’s pro sep le a d in g s . See Ledbe tterv. C i t y of 1 Topeka, Kan. , 3 1 8 F . 3 d1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 

## F I LED United State s C ourt o f Appe als Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly 28,2006 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 CA M ERO N C . BRA ZI LLE, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. G L Y N N B O O H E R , W ar den, R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 7049 ( E . D . O kl ahoma) ( D . Ct . N o. CI V - 02 - 44 0- S)

ORDE R DE NYI NG LE AVE TO P ROCE ED ON APP EAL INF O R M A PA U PER IS , DE NYI NG CE RT I F I CAT E OF AP P EA LA BI LI TY , AN D D I S M I S S I NG AP P L I CA T I ON B efor e KELLY , O’ BRI EN , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui t Judg es.

A ft er exami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l y t hat or al ar gum ent w oul d not m at er i al l y as s i s t t he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. C amer on C . B r azi l l e, a s t at e i nm at e appe ar i ng pro se , s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of 1 a p p e a lab ili ty(C O A ) a llo w in g h im to a p p e a l f ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h isB r azi l l e neve rfi l ed a reques tfora C O A w i th the di s tri ctcourtbutdi d fi l e a 2 n o tic e o f ap p e a l, w h ic his c o n s tru e da s are qu e s t f o r aC O A . F ED . R . A PP . P . 2 2 (b); H oxs i e v. Kerby , 108 F. 3d 1239, 1241 ( 10th C ir . 1997) . T he di s tri ctcourtneverrul ed on the C O A i s s ue. “U nderourE m ergencyG eneralO rderof O ctober1, 1996, w e dee m the di s tri ctcourt ’ s fai lur e to i s s ue a [ C O A ] w i thin thirtyday s afterfi l ing the noti ce of appea l as a deni alof the ce rti fi cate. ” U ni ted Statesv. Kennedy , 2 2 5 F .3 d1 1 8 7 , 1 1 9 3 n .3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ).

- 2- pet i t i on for w r i t of habea s corpus under 28 U . S. C . § 2254 . B eca us e B r azi l l e has 2 fai l ed t o m ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of t he deni al of a c ons t i t ut i onal r i ght ” as r equi r ed by28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) , w e denya C O A and di s m i s s hi s appl i cat i on. On Au g u s t 1 7 , 1 9 9 9 , Br a z i l l e a n d Br e n d a Co n a r d a t t e mp t e d t o c a s h t wo s t ol en che cks at H arp’ s Foods St or e i n For t G i bs on, O kl ahoma. T heyl eftt he s t or e i n a pi ckup t r uck dr i ven byanot her m al e. W hen t he ar r es t i ng offi cer stop p ed the p icku p tru ck , the o fficer d isco v ere d a third sto len c h ec k o n B raz il le’s p e r s o n . Br a z i l l e wa s a r r e s t e d a n d c h a r g e d i n Ok l a h o ma s t a t e c o u r t wi t h t wo count s of ut t er i ng a for ged i ns t r um ent ( C ount s 1 and 3) and t hr ee c ount s of k n o w in g lyc o n c e a lin g sto len p ro p e rty (C o u n t 2 , 4 -5 ). T h e ju ry fo u n d h im g u ilt y o n a ll fiv e c o u n ts. T h e trial ju d g e m e rg e d th e th re e c o u n ts o f k n o w in g ly c o n c e a lin g sto len p ro p e rty in to o n e c o u n t, C o u n t 2 , an d se n ten c e d B ra z ill e to t hr ee c oncur r ent t w ent y y earper i ods of i m pr i s onm ent . B r azi l l e appe al ed t o t he O k la h o m a C o u rt o f

C ri m in a l A p p e a ls (O C C A ), w h ic h a ffir m e d th e c o n v ic tio n . H e al s o fi l ed a pe t i t i on for pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i n s t at e cour t w hi ch w as deni ed; h is a p p e a l f

ro m th a t d e n ial w a s u n su c c e ss f u l.Inh is ap p e llate b rie f , B ra z ill e c laim s th e d istric t co urt f a iledto a d dre ss h is 3 arg um e nt th at th e state tria l ju d g e e x c e e d e dh is auth o rityb yd ism iss in g th e juryp rio r to the pena ltyphas e. T he reas on the di s tri ctcourtdi d notaddres s the argum enti s thathe r ai s ed itforthe fir s ttim e in hi s obj ecti ons t o the magi s tr ate j udge’ s r eportand re c o m m e n d atio n . M o re o v e r, B ra z ill e f a iledto e x h au st h is s tate c o urt re m e d ies o nth is cl aim . N everthel es s , the record s how s thatB r azi l l e s tipul ated forpurpos es of s entencing thathe had tw o orm or e pri orfel onyconvi cti ons . C ons equently , no furtherfac t - finding w a s n e c e s s ary.

- 3- O n A ugus t 16, 2002, B r azi l l e fi l ed a § 2254 pe t i t i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt fo r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f O k lah o m a . In th is p e tit io n , B ra z ill e r ai s ed t he fol l ow i ng gr ounds for r el i ef: ( 1) t he s t ol en che ck found on hi s per s on (w h ich w a s th e b a sis fo r C o u n t 5 ) sh o u ld h a v e b e e n su p p re ss e d u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t b e c a u se it w a s th e f ru it o f a n u n law f

u l se a rc h ; (2 ) h is s e n ten c e is e x c e ss iv e b e c a u se n o h a rm re su lted f ro m th e o ffe n se ; (3 ) h e sh o u ld n o t b e h e ld l i abl e fort he che ck C onar d at t empt ed t o cas h ( C ount 1) and i ns uffi ci ent evi dence w as pr es ent ed t hat he ai ded and a bet t ed her ; ( 4) t r i al couns el w as i neffect i ve for fa ili n g to h a v e C o u n t 1 su p p re ss e d a n d to in v e stig a te th e c h a rg e s; (5 ) h is d o u b le j eopar dy r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bec aus e he w as char ged w i t h m ul t i pl e cr i m es and r ece i ved mul t i pl e s ent ence s for a s i ngl e ac t ; ( 6) t he t es t i m onyof t he ar r es t i ng offi cerand t he ow ner of t he s t ol en che cks w as not cr edi bl e; and ( 7) t he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci ent t hat he w as t he mal e i ndi vi dual w ho pr es ent ed t he che cks at t he s t or e and i n fac t , i t w as t he dr i ver of t he t r uck w ho pr es ent ed t he che cks at t he s t or e. I n a t hor ough anal y s i s , t he magi s t r at e j udge r ej ect ed t hes e cl ai m s on t he

3 m er i t s . T he di s t r i ct cour t agr eed w i t h t he magi s t r at e and de ni ed B r azi l l e’ s § 2254O n appea l , B r azi l l e cl aim s the di s tri ctcourtdi d nottim elyaddres s hi s § 2254 4 peti ti on. B ecaus e B r azi l l e’ s peti ti on w as pr operlydeni ed, anydel ayin i t s r es oluti on w as n o t p re ju d icia l.

- 4- pet i t i on. W e have t hor oughl y r evi ew ed t he ent i r e r ecor d, w hi ch i ncl udes t he t r ans cr i pt s of B r azi l l e’ s t r i al , and t he r el evantaut hor i t y . For s ubs t ant i al l y t he sa m e re a so n s re lied u p o n b y th e m a g istra te, w e c a n n o t sa y “ th a t re a so n a b le ju rists coul d debat e w het her ( or , for t hat m at t er , agr ee t hat ) t he pet i t i on s houl d have b e e n 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 d e s e rv e e n c o u ra g e m e n t to p ro c e e d f u rt h e r.” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473,

4 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ) (q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e re fo re , B ra z ill e ’s r e q u e st fo r a C O A is DENI ED and his app l i cat i on i s DI S M I S S ED . Be c a u s e Br a z i l l e h a s n o t s h o wn

“ th e e x iste n c e o f

a re a so n e d , n o n f

riv o lo u s a rg u m e n t o n th e law a n d fa c ts in s uppor t of t he i s s ues r ai s ed on appe al , ” hi s r eques t t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris on app eal i s DENI ED . D eBardel eben v . Q ui nl an , 9 3 7 F . 2 d 5 0 2 , 5 0 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui t J udge