* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

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

### JAN 29 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN RAYMOND PETERS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee. No. 96-3110 (D.C. No. 94-CV-3074) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges

.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is 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.-2-

Petitioner John Raymond Peters appeals from an orde r of the district court dismissing his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We affirm. At a general court martial proceeding in Germany, M r. Peters pled guilty to two counts of carnal knowledge with a minor and two counts of indecent acts against a minor. He was sentenced to a dishonorabl e discharge, reduction in grade to E-1, and confinement of twenty years with ten years suspended. In his petition, Mr. Peters raised issues pertainin g both to the trial and the appellate process. Mr. Peters alleged he was menta lly incompetent at trial and on appeal, he received ineffective assistance from both trial and appellate counsel, he was denied his right to a fair trial. He also alle ged “failure to give notice” during trial and by the Court of Military Appeals, unlawfu l command influence, contempt of court because court-ordered psychologic al tests were not performed, evidence was withheld, and other unspecified “const itutional violations pertaining to the right to due process.” R. at 17, p.17. When reviewing a military habeas petition, the fede ral courts are limited to determining whether the petitioner’s claims were gi ven full and fair consideration by the military courts. Lips v. Commandant, UnitedStates Disciplinary Barracks , 997 F.2d 808, 810 (10th Cir. 1993); see also Burns v. Wilson , 346 U.S. 137, 139-42 (1953). If the claims were given full and f air consideration, the district court must deny the petition. Lips , 997 F.2d at 810. Issues which were not raised-3-

to the military courts will not be considered when raised in a federal habeas petition absent a showing of cause for the procedur al default and prejudice resulting from the error. Id. at 812. The record here shows the military courts gave full and fair consideration to those issues Mr. Peters raised. We will not address the issues Mr. Peters did not raise to the military courts as he has shown ne ither the requisite cause nor prejudice. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons given by the district court. Mr. Peter’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appe al is GRANTED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge