UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ FRANK THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. ROBERT PATTON, Director, Respondent - Appellee. No. 15-6092 (D.C. No. 5:13- CV-00578-F) (W.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFIC ATE OF APPEALABILITY *

________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , TYMKOVICH , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Proceeding pro se, 1 Oklahoma state prisoner Frank Thomas seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the distri ct court’s denial of his federal habeas petition. Thomas was convicted in Oklahoma stat e court for trafficking in illegal drugs with a prior felony conviction, possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute after a prior fel ony conviction, and domestic abuse. The Oklahoma Court

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judica ta, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32 .1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 Because Thomas proceeds pro se, we liber ally construe his brief. But we will not act as his advocate by scouring the re cord or developing arguments for him. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 84 0 (10th Cir. 2005). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### September 15, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed his convictions and sentence. The OCCA also affirmed a subsequent distri ct court decision denying Thom as post-conviction relief. Thomas then turned to federal district court, filing a fede ral habeas corpus petition listing 35 grounds on which he believe d relief was warranted. The district court referred the matter to a magistra te judge, who recomm ended denying Thomas’ petition. The district court accepted that recommendation, denied Thomas’ habeas petition, and also denied Thomas a COA. T homas now seeks a COA from this court. We may grant Thomas a COA only if he “has made a substa ntial showing of the denial of a c onstitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a district court has decided an applicant’s clai m on its merits, that standard is satisfied if “reasonable jurists would find the distri ct court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) . If a district court instead concludes an applicant’s claim is procedurally barred, the applicant must show “that jurists of reason would find it de batable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a c onstitutional right and that ju rists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court wa s correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. In his COA application, Thomas winnow s down his 35 claims of error to 17. Regarding 11 of his issues, however, Thomas (1) references only his prior filings in federal and state court, and (2) fails to provide any supporting explanation or legal authority. See 10th Cir. R. 28.4 (warning that inco rporation of lower court pleadings doesn’t satisfy requireme nts of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure);3 Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8) (stating briefs must contain appellant ’s contentions with record citations and approp riate legal authority). Thomas’ pro se status does not relieve him of complying with Rule 28. Thus, his failure to cite the reco rd, provide authority, and expl ain why the district court erred renders his briefing of most of his issues insufficient to warrant our review. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 840- 41 (10th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we consider only the six arguments Thomas adequately briefs. See
Bronson v. Swensen , 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting we routinely refuse to consider ar guments that fail to co mply with Rule 28). Those six arguments allege violations of the Fourth Amendment, insufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on accomplice testimony, the admission of purportedly false testimony, and violations of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1 963). We have reviewed Thomas’ brief and the magistra te judge’s recommendation, and we agree with the district court that Thomas has not made the requisite showing for a COA. We deny his request for a C OA and dismiss this appeal. 2

Entered for the Court
Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge

2 Thomas filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but later paid the filing fee. Accordingly, we dism iss his motion as moot.