*This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicataand collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### AUG 5 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________ JAMES BAUHAUS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v. DAN REYNOLDS, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee. No. 98-5054 (N.D. Okla.) (D.Ct. No. 96-C-929-H)

__________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

__________________________ Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY, and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

__________________________ After examining the brief and appellate record, thi s panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of 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.

Mr. Bauhaus is an Oklahoma state inmate and a pro se litigant. He filed a-2-

federal petition for habeas relief, which was denie d. (Mr. Bauhaus now appeals the district court’s order denying this petition.
Mr. Bauhaus was convicted by a state jury of the cr ime of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Oklahoma Courtof Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence in a published opinion, Bauhaus v. State , 532 P. 2d 434 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975), cert. denied , 434 U.S. 972 (1977). Mr. Bauhaus has filed several applications for post- co nviction relief in the Oklahoma state courts.
A review of the trial transcript reveals a simple e videntiary case. The victim and his wife returned home and found Mr. Bau haus in the process of burglarizing their home. Mr. Bauhaus shot and kill ed the victim. The victim’s wife positively identified Mr. Bauhaus. In additio n, a bystander outside the home identified Mr. Bauhaus as the individual running aw ay from the direction of the victim’s home shortly after the crime.
Mr. Bauhaus filed his habeas petition with the dist rict court. In his petition, Mr. Bauhaus claimed Oklahoma deprived him of due process by concealing blood and fingerprint evidence that he a lleges conclusively-3-

demonstrates he is innocent of the crime; he did no t receive a fast, speedy, fair, and impartial trial by an impartial jury or effecti ve assistance of counsel; and his trial was tainted by “ineffective counsel, police [ and] media prejudice, non-fairimpartial trial, [and] judicial error”.
The district court denied relief in a thirteen-page written order. A fair summary of the district court’s order is that the e xistence of the allegedly withheld blood sample and fingerprint evidence was clearly revealed to Mr. Bauhaus at trial. Furthermore, even if the evidenc e was withheld, and the record reflects it was not, such suppression did not violate due process because it would not have undermined confidence in the outcome of th e trial. The court also rejected Mr. Bauhaus’ contention that he was denied due process because witnesses’ descriptions of the assailant were withh eld in allegedly concealed police reports. The district court next concluded any alleged new evidence does not satisfy the “clear and convincing” requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) to overcome a presumption of correctness. The distric t court found no merit to Mr. Bauhaus’ lack of speedy trial and claims of ineffec tive assistance of counsel.
Mr. Bauhaus appeals this decision by claiming: (1) Oklahoma denied him a constitutionally fair and correct trial by “withhol ding evidence, suborning-4-

eyewitnesses, and inducing fallacies into the mediaand jury”; (2) the court should require crime scene fingerprint samples to be analy zed since the true killer’s prints were added to the National Crime Information Center database six years after the crime at issue; and (3) the court should require new physical evidence analyzed based on new scientific DNA techniques ava ilable.
We must first decide whether to grant Mr. Bauhaus’ request for a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 provides an app eal may not be taken to the court of appeals from a district judge’s ruling on a state prisoner’s habeas corpus petition unless a circuit judge issues a certificat e of appealability. We may issue such a certificate only if the prisoner has made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” and the certificate indicates which issue or issues satisfy the required showing. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(2) - (3). To obtain a certificate of appealability Mr. Bauhaus must make a showing of th e denial of an important federal right by demonstrating the issues raised ar e debatable among jurists; or that a court could resolve the issues differently; or that the questions deserve further proceedings. Barefoot v. Estelle , 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983).
Mr. Bauhaus, in his brief to this court, fails to s how either factually or legally any error in the opinion of the district co urt. Rather, he reargues his-5-

contentions. He provides no other evidence support ing his conclusory allegations that proves his actual innocence.
The order of the district court accurately sets forth the significant facts and correctly analyzes applicable law. Were we to reac h the merits, we would affirm the judgment of the district court for substantiall y the reasons set forth in the district court’s order. We attach a copy hereto.

As Mr. Bauhaus has failed to show the denial of an important federal right by demonstrating the issues raised are debatable am ong jurists, or that a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the q uestions deserve further proceedings, we deny his request for a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED
.
Mr. Bauhaus recently filed a motion for summary jud gment and a motion to compel production of evidence with this court. Sin ce we decline to exercise jurisdiction over these motions, the motions are de nied. Entered by the Court: WADE BRORBY United States Circuit JudgeAttachment not available electronically.