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

### A u gu s t15,2006 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 D A V ID S H A W N J O H N S O N ,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. L E N O R A J O R D A N , W ar den,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 5080 ( D. C. No . 0 2 - CV- 6 3 0 - TCK- P J C)

(N .D . O k la .)

OR DER B efor e K E L L Y , M c K A Y , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ppel l anti s a s t at e pr i s oner , appea r i ng pr o s e, w ho s eeks habea s r el i ef pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254. H e w as convi ct ed of r obberyaft erform er con vict i on of tw o o r m ore fel on i es and w as sent enced t o 1 99 y ears ’ im p riso n m e n t. H is c o n v ictio n w a s a ffirm e d o n d ire c t ap p e a l. A pp el l ant fi l ed a § 22 54 peti t i on , cl ai m i ng t hat hi s r i gh t s t o d ue p rocess a n d e q u a l p ro tec tio n w e re v io late d w h e n th e trial c o u rt: (1 ) d e n ied h is m o tio n to s uppr es s i n- cour ti dent i fi cat i on byt he vi ct i m ; ( 2) fai l ed t o gi ve, s ua s pont e, an a lib i in stru c tio n ; (3 ) fa iled to d e c lar e a m istria l af ter se v e ra l ju ro rs r e p o rte d th a t a sp e c tato r h a d in tim id a ted th e m ; an d (4 ) a llo w e d th e a d m iss io n o f e v id e n c e o f

h is- 2-

ear l yr el eas e fr om pr i s on on a pr i ors ent ence . T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed the p eti ti o n . O rde r, 1 1 (N . D . O k la. M ar. 16 , 2 0 0 6 ). A s to h is first c laim , the re c o rd su p p o rts th a t th e v ictim h a d a m p le oppor tuni t yt o vi ew A ppel l antdur i ng the cour s e of the r obberyand ther e w as “no evi dence t hatw i t nes s w as t he l eas tbi tuncert ai n i n hi s i dent i fi cat i on attr i al or w hen s how n t he phot o arr ay s pr i ort o tr i al . ” Id . at5. T her efor e, w e conc l ude that the d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f th is cl aim fo r ha b ea s co rpu s reli ef is no t error. A ppel l antdi d notr eques tan al i bi i ns truct i on attr i al nordi d he pr es entan al i bi defe ns e, buthe neve r t hel es s ar gues thatthe tr i al cour terr ed i n fai l i ng t o gi ve s ua s pont e an a l i bi i ns t ruct i on. T he di s tr i ctcourtfound thatA ppel l ant“has fai l ed to s h o w th a t h e w a s d e p ri v e d o f a fa irtr ia l b yfa ilu re to g iv e a n a lib i in s tru c tio n ,” a n d w e a ffir m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is c u s s io n o n th is is s u e . Id . at6. A ppel l antcl ai m s t hatt he tr i al courterr ed i n notdecl ar i ng a mi s tr i al aft er se v e ra l ju ro rs r e p o rte d th a t a s p e c tato r h a d in tim id a ted th e m . T h e d istric t co u rt, aft err evi ew i ng t he ent i r e r ecor d, found “nothi ng i n the r ecor d s ugges t i ng thatt he t r i al cour t ’ s acc ept ance of the j ur or s ’ r epr es ent at i ons thatthe s pect at ordi d not affectt hei rcons i der at i on of the ca s e w as unfounded ori ncorr ect . ” Id . a t 9 . L as t , A ppel l ant ’ s four t h cl ai m , hi s chal l enge t o the admi s s i on of evi dence of ea r l yr el eas e, i s a s t at e evi dent i aryi s s ue, nota cons t i tut i onal i s s ue. W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s anal y s i s thathe i s ther efor e notent i t l ed t o habea s corpus r el i ef on the cl ai m “unl es s he demonstr at es thathi s tr i al w as r ender ed- 3-

fundament al l yunfai rbyt he al l eged e rr or . ” Id . at10. T he evi dence does not s uppor tt hatA ppel l anthas m ett hi s bur den. A ppel l antnow s eeks fr om thi s courta ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty . T he iss u e s h e ra ise s o n a p p e a l ar e id e n tica l to th o se b ro u g h t b e fo re th e d istric t co u rt. T o gr anta ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty , A ppel l antm us tm ake a “s ubs t ant i al s h o w in g o f

th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ) ( 1 9 9 4 ). T o m e e t th is b u rd e n , A p p e llan t m u st d e m o n stra te “ th a t re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld debat e w hether( or , fort hatm at t er , agr ee that ) the pet i t i on s houl d have be en 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 des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). W e h av e c are fu ll yrev iew ed A p p ell an t’ s b ri ef, the d istri ct co u rt ’s d isp o sitio n , an d th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l. N o th in g in th e fa c ts, th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l, orA ppel l ant ’ s fi l i ng r ai s es an i s s ue w hi ch meet s ours t andar d forthe gr antof a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y . Fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons s etfor th bythe d istric t co u rt in its o rd e r o f M a rc h 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 , w e c a n n o t sa y“ th a t re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld d e b a te w h e th e r (o r, fo r th a t m a tter, a g re e th a t) th e p e tit io n sh o u ld have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm anner . ” Id.- 4-

A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY A ppel l ant ’ s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i t yand D I SM I SS t he appe al . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge