UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ THOMAS A. BIAS, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. JIMMY MARTIN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 18-5105 (D.C. No. 4:17-CV -00607-JHP-FHM) (N.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

________________ _________________ Before HOLMES , BACHARACH , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Thomas A. Bias, an Oklahoma stat e prisoner proceeding pro se, 1 seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of h is petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We deny Mr. Bias’s applic ation for a COA and dismiss t his matter.

 This order is not binding prec edent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral esto ppel. It may be cited, howeve r, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P . 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1 Because Mr. Bias is proceeding pr o se, we construe his filings liberally, but we do not act as his advocate. See Yang v. Archuleta , 525 F.3d 925, 9 27 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 8, 2019 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 I. In 1975, Mr. Bias was convicted in Oklahoma state court of fir st-degree murder and sentenced to death. He was 17 years old at the time of the murder, but he was certified to be tried as an adu lt. On direct appeal, the Oklah oma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed his convi ction but modified his sentenc e to life imprisonment at hard labor. See Bias v. State , 561 P.2d 523, 538 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977) (per curiam). Mr. Bias filed several applica tions for postconviction relief i n state court, which were denied. In 1991, he filed an app lication for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The district court denied the application , and this court affirmed. Bias v. Cody , No. 92-5190, 1993 WL 152654 (10th Cir. May 11, 1993). In 2012, the Supre me Court held in Miller v. Alabama , that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing s cheme that mandates life in pri son without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders .” 567 U.S. 460, 479 (2012). And in January 2016, the Supreme Court held that Miller announced a new rule of cons titutional law to be applied retroactively on collateral review. Montgomery v. Louisiana , 136 S. Ct. 718, 734 (2016). In July 2016, Mr. Bias filed a nother application for post-conv iction relief in Oklahoma state court, claiming th at his life sentence “should h ave a finite term” because “Oklahoma courts have implied th at life meant 45 years” under s tate statute. R. at 64. It appears he did not challenge the constitutionality of his life sentence under Miller and Montgomery . The state court denied re lief, and the OCCA affirmed.3 On January 12, 2017, Mr. Bias filed a § 2241 petition for a wr it of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for t he Northern District of Oklahom a claiming that his life sentence was “in violation of D ue Process and Equal Protection by not being allowed to seek collateral attack against c ontinued incarceration.” R. at 98 (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). He as serted that “State Legislation, State Law and District Court’s rulings have established a precedent” that he had disch arged his life sentence, and he asked the court to modify his s entence “to a determinate for ty-five (45) year sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omit ted). The district court dismis sed the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Mr. B ias then pursued administrative relief. On November 2, 2017, Mr. Bias f iled the § 2241 habeas petition underlying this appeal. In Ground One, citing Miller , he claimed that his lif e sentence violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments . In Ground Two, he alleged th at he was being held unlawfully because he had discharg ed his life sentence under Ok lahoma state statutes and court decisions. The district c ourt dismissed the § 2241 petit ion for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that Ground One, which challenged the const itutionality of Mr. Bias’s life sentence, was a n unauthorized second or success ive § 2254 habeas claim. The court concluded that Ground Two, which alleged a violation of state law, was not a cognizable federal habeas claim . Mr. Bias seeks a COA to appea l these determinations. II. “Petitions under § 2241 are used to attack the execution of a s entence, in contrast to § 2254 habeas . . . proceedings, w hich are used to collatera lly attack the validity of a4 conviction and sentence.” McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n , 115 F.3d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1997) (citations omitte d). “[A] state prisoner must obtain a COA to appeal the denial of a habeas petition, whe ther such petition was filed pu rsuant to § 2254 or § 2241, whenever ‘the detentio n complained of arises out of process iss ued by a State court.’” Montez v. McKinna , 208 F.3d 862, 867 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)) (alteration omitted). If the petition was disp osed of on proc edural grounds, “the app licant faces a double hurdle” to obtain a COA. Coppage v. McKune , 534 F.3d 1279, 1281 (10th Cir. 2008). “Not only must the applic ant make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, but he must also show ‘that jurist of rea son would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling .’” Id. (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)) (alte ration omitted). “Each compon ent of [this showing] is part of a threshold inquiry, and a court may find t hat it can dispose of the application in a fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue whose answer is more apparent from th e record and arguments.” Slack , 529 U.S. at 485. The procedural issue is often more apparent, see id. , but we need not decide it first if “a quick look at the face of the [petition] ” reveals that it does not “f acially allege the denial of a constitutional right.” Paredes v. Atherton , 224 F.3d 1160, 1161 ( 10th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Having reviewed the record on app eal, the district court’s orde r and Mr. Bias’s combined opening brief and appli cation for a COA, we conclude M r. Bias is not entitled to a COA. With regard to Ground One, Mr. Bias previously filed a § 2254 application,5 which was adjudicated on the me rits, and he did not obtain prio r authorization from this court before filing his claim challenging the validity of his l ife sentence under Miller

. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b )(2) and (b)(3). It is not debatable that t he district court correctly dismissed Ground One as an unaut horized second or successive § 2254 claim. See In re Cline , 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2 008) (“A district court does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive . . . 28 U.S.C . § 2254 claim until this court has granted th e required authoriza tion.”). As to Ground Two, we need not reach the jurisdictional issue as framed by the district court because ou r quick look at Mr. Bias’s § 2241 petition confirms that he a lleged only a violation of st ate law—that he had discharged his life sentence and his continued detention violat ed Oklahoma statues and court decisions. Because he did no t allege the denial of a con stitutional right in Ground Two, Mr. Bias is not entitled to a COA. See Montez , 208 F.3d at 865 (holding that state law violations are not cognizabl e in a federal habeas action). III. For the foregoing reasons, we de ny Mr. Bias’s application for a COA and dismiss this matter.

Entered for the Court

Jerome A. Holmes Circuit Judge