T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, fo r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 17, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT D A N N Y J O E B O O M E R S H IN E ,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. S T AT E OF OKL AHOMA,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 07- 5075 ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV- 1 7 0 - CVE- P J C)

(N .D . O k la .)

OR DER * B efor e B RI S CO E , M c KAY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. Pet i t i oner , a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of a p p e a la b ility to a p p e a l th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f h is § 2 2 5 4 h a b e a s p e titio n . Pet i t i onerw as convi ct ed of for ci bl e s odom yand r ape byi ns trum ent at i on and r ece i ved a s ent ence of 300 y ear s on eac h count , t o be s erved cons ecut i vel y . T he O k lah o m a C o u rt o f

C rim in a l A p p e a ls a ffirm e d h is c o n v ictio n s b u t m o d ified h is s ent ence s t o run concurr ent l y . H i s s t at e courtpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef pe t i t i on w as deni ed, and thi s deni al w as aff i r m ed on appe al . Pet i t i oners ubs equent l yfi l ed the instan t § 2 2 5 4 p eti ti o n raisi n g fiv e g rou n d s o f e rror an d see k ing an ev iden ti aryA lth o u g h P e tit io n e r a rg u e s th a t th e sta te a p p e llate c o u rt e rre d w h e n it h e ld 1 th a t h e h a d n o t p ro p e rlyra ise d o n e o f th e se c laim s b e fo re th e sta te d istric t co u rt, t he fe der al di s t r i ctcour tappr opr i at el ydefe rr ed t o the s t at e court ’ s appl i cat i on of s ta te la w o n th is p ro c e d u ra l m a tte r. See J acks on v. Shanks , 143 F. 3d 1313, 1317 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). -2- hear i ng. M or e than tw o y ear s aft erfi l i ng the habe as pet i t i on, Pet i t i oneratt empt ed t o amend i tt o add thr ee ne w gr ounds of err or . T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed Pet i t i oner ’ s habea s pet i t i on, hi s r eques tforan evi dent i aryhear i ng, and hi s m ot i on t o amend t he pet i t i on. Pet i t i onernow s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyt o appea l t hese rul i ng s. T o obt ai n a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty , Pet i t i onerm us tm ake a “s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . I n or der to m e e t th is b u rd e n , P e tit io n e r 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 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). T he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatPet i t i onerw as notent i t l ed t o r el i ef on a ny of the fi ve gr ounds s t at ed i n hi s habea s pet i t i on. Speci fi cal l y , the courtconcl uded t hatt hr ee of

Pet i t i oner ’ s gr ounds w er e barr ed bythe s t at e court ’ s fi ndi ng of pr ocedur al defa ul t and thatPet i t i onerhad notdemonstr at ed that“ca us e and 1 pr ej udi ce” excus ed the defaul tnort hata “f undament al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce” w o u ld re s u lt if

h is c la im s w e re n o t c o n s id e re d . See Col em an v. Thomps on , 501-3-

U . S . 7 2 2 , 7 5 0 (19 9 1 ); Maes v. Thom as , 46 F. 3d 979, 985 ( 10th C i r . 1995) . T he cour tnot ed thatPet i t i oner ’ s as s ert i on of ac tual i nnocenc e w as nots uppor t ed by anynew evi dence , and the courtconcl uded thatPet i t i onerhad notm ade a c o lo ra b le s h o w in g o f

fa c tu a l in n o c e n c e . S e e Sc h lu p v . D e lo , 513 U . S. 298, 329 ( 1995) ( hol di ng t hata habe as pet i t i onerm us ts how “thatno r eas onabl e j ur or w o u ld h a v e fo u n d th e d e fe n d a n t g u ilty ” ). A s fo r P e tit io n e r’s c laim th a t h is convi ct i ons vi ol at ed the doubl e j eopar dycl aus e of the C ons t i tut i on and O kl ahoma’ s s t atut or ypr ohi bi t i on agai ns tdoubl e puni s hm ent , the courthel d that th e s ta te s ta tu to ry c la im w a s n o t c o g n iz a b le o n fe d e ra l h a b e a s c o rp u s re v ie w , s ee Est el l e v. McG uir e , 502 U . S. 62, 67- 68 ( 1991) , and thatthe cr i m es forw hi ch Pet i t i onerw as convi ct ed w er e s epar at e and di s t i nctoffe ns es underthe B l ockburgerte s t, s ee Bl ockburgerv. Uni t ed Stat es , 284 U . S. 299, 304 ( 1932) ( “[W ] her e the s ame actort r ans act i on cons t i tut es a vi ol at i on of tw o di s t i nct s t a tu t o r yp r o v i s i o n s , t h e t e s tt o b e a p p l i e d t o d e t e r mi n e wh e th e rth e r e a r e two offe ns es oronl yone, i s w hethereac h pr ovi s i on r equi r es pr oof of a fac tw hi ch the ot herdoes not . ”) ; O kl a. St at . t i t . 21, §§ 886, 888; O U J I - C R ( 2d) 4- 128 ( defi ni ng for ci bl e s odom y ) ; t i t . 21, § 1 1 1 1 . 1 ( d e fi n i n g r a p e b y i n s tru m e n t a t i o n ) . F i n a l l y, t he courtdet erm i ned thatPet i t i oner ’ s fi fth gr ound of err orappea r ed t o be a chal l enge t o O kl ahoma’ s pos t - convi ct i on pr ocedur es , w hi ch i s notcogni zabl e on fe d e ra l h a b e a s c o rp u s re v ie w . See S el l ers v. Ward , 1 3 5 F .3 d 1 3 3 3 , 1 3 3 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ).-4-

P e tit io n e r a lso se e k s to a p p e a l th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to am en d the h ab ea s p eti ti o n an d req u est fo r an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g . T h e c o u rt d e n ied P e tit io n e r’s m o tio n to a m e n d b e c a u se th e th re e n e w g ro u n d s a ss e rte d in t he pr opos ed amended pet i t i on w er e ent i r el ynew cl ai m s thatdi d notr el at e bac k to th e o rig in a l p e tit io n a n d b e c a u se th e c o u rt fo u n d n o sta tu to ryo r e q u itab le b a sis fo r t o llin g th e o n e -ye a r s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s o n th e c la im s . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Es pi noz a- Saenz , 2 3 5 F . 3 d 5 0 1 , 5 0 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 4 (d)(1 )(A ). A s forPet i t i oner ’ s r eques tforan evi dent i aryhear i ng, the courtconcl uded that P e titio n e r h a d n o t d e m o n s tr a te d th a t h e w a s e n title d to a h e a ri n g . See Mi l l erv. C hampi on , 1 6 1 F . 3 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). W e h av e c are fu ll yrev iew ed P eti ti o n er’s b ri ef, the d istri ct co u rt ’s di s pos i t i on, and the r ecor d on appea l . N othi ng i n thes e mat er i al s convi nces us that rea so n ab le j u ri sts co u ld d eb ate w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt ’s ruli n g s w ere c o rre c t. A c c o rd in g ly , fo r su b sta n tiallyth e re a so n s s e t fo rth b yth e d istric t co u rt, w e DE NY Pet i t i oner ’ s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyand D I SM I SS t he a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge