* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral 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 

### OCT 6 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

A.C. JACKSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; THE STATE OF KANSAS; L.E. BRUCE, Warden, Ellsworth Correctional Facility; KANSAS PAROLE BOARD; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KANSAS,

Respondents-Appellees. No. 98-3042 (D.C. No. 96-CV-3303) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BALDOCK , EBEL , 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-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Petitioner A. C. Jackson, a Kansas state inmate con fined in Ellsworth Correctional Facility, seeks a certificate of appea lability to appeal the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In order to show entitlement to a certificate of appealability, an appellant must make “a substantial showing of the d enial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard is met by a showing that the issues raised “are debatable among jurists, or that a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions deserve further proceedings.” United States v. Sistrunk , 111 F.3d 91, 91 (10th Cir. 1997). In 1972, petitioner began serving a life sentenc e imposed by the Kansas state court. He was paroled by the Kansas Parole B oard to Missouri, but subsequently convicted of Missouri state burglary and theft charges. After serving his Missouri sentence, he was returned to K ansas as a parole violator. Based on the Missouri convictions, the Kansas Parol e Board revoked his parole on December 7, 1995, indicating that he would be ag ain considered for parole in August 1996. The Parole Board, however, has contin ued to deny parole. In the district court, petitioner asserted that he is entitled to habeas relief for errors related to his arrest and detention on the parole violation warrant, his-3-

resulting extradition from Missouri to Kansas, and his parole revocation proceedings. The district court analyzed each of p etitioner’s claims, including: (1) unlawful detention in Missouri; (2) denial of d ue process during a probable cause hearing; (3) denial of due process upon his e xtradition to Kansas; (4) violation of his liberty interests by the revoc ation of parole and the continued denial of parole; and (5) unconstitutionality of th e Uniform Act for Out-of-State Parolee Supervision, see Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-4101. The district court determined that petitioner had failed to exhaust hi s state court remedies, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) and that, even if the claims were properly presented for federal review, they lacked merit. It denied the p etition for habeas relief and, subsequently, petitioner’s request for a certificat e of appealability. After a review of the record, we agree with the dis trict court for the reasons stated in its order of January 29, 1998. Because we conclude that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of th e denial of a constitutional right, we DENY his request for a certificate of app ealability and DISMISS the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge