*After examining the brief filed by J. B. Pease and the appellate record, this panel

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. 

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

### JUN 5 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
J. B. PEASE, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. No. 96-6341 KEN KLINGER; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 96-CV-1144-M)

Submitted on the briefs: * J. B. Pease, pro se.

Before PORFILIO , TACHA , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

.1 In 1989, Mr. Pease filed his first habeas petition that was dismissed by the

district court. Pease v. Hargett , No. 89-1493 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 6, 1989), appeal dismissed , No. 89-6403 (10th Cir. May 30, 1990), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 843 (1990). In 1990, he filed his second petition that was dismissed by the district court. Pease v. Hargett , No. 90-1156 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 19, 1990), aff’d. , No. 90-6308 (10th Cir. Feb. 8, 1991). -2- J. B. Pease appeals from the district court’s Septe mber 26, 1996 order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation and dismissing his third 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The magistrate judge recomme nded dismissal based on the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Ac t of 1996 (“AEDPA”), finding that Mr. Pease failed to obtain prior authorization from this court before filing his third petition in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Hatch v. State of Okl. , 92 F.3d 1012, 1013 (10th Cir. 1996). Mr. Pease t hen filed a notice of appeal rather than an application under the AEDPA for leav e to file a second or successive habeas petition in the district court. The district court’s September 26, 1996 order dismi ssing Mr. Pease’s third habeas petition is affirmed. There is no dispute t hat the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition Mr. Pease filed in the district court on July 17, 1 996 was a successive petition. Because he filed this petition after April 24, 1996 , the effective date of the AEDPA, he was required to comply with the relevant provisi ons of that Act. The district court had no jurisdiction to decide Mr. Pease’s suc cessive § 2254 petition without authority from the court of appeals. 1-3-

Further, we construe Mr. Pease’s notice of appeal a nd appellate brief as an implied application for leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in the United States District Court for the Western Distri ct of Oklahoma. See Nunez v. U.S. , 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996)(“treating an app eal . . . as a request for authorization will speed cases to decision”). In 1988, Mr. Pease was convicted by an Oklahoma state court jury of lewd molestation, first degree rape, and indecent exposu re and was sentenced to a total of eighty years. He did not file a direct appeal. St ate post-conviction relief was denied. In his application, Mr. Pease contends that a recen t order issued in Pease v. Wampler , No. PC 96-262 (Okla. Crim. App. May 9, 1996)(orde r denying postconviction relief), constitutes a “ground for relie f” or “new ruling” that enables him to raise once again the claim that he was denied his right to a direct appeal and shows that the district court decision in Pease v. Hargett , No. 89-1493 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 6, 1989), was erroneous. See Pease’s Brief at 2-3 and 9-10. The court has thoroughly reviewed the implied appli cation and concludes Mr. Pease has failed to make a prima facie showing that satisfies the AEDPA’s criteria. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C). His claim does not meeteither of the standards set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) as amended. Mr. Pease do es not rely on a new rule of constitutional law or on a factual predicate that w as previously undiscoverable. The order issued in Pease v. Wampler , No. PC 96-262 (Okla. Crim. App. May 9, 1996),-4-

is not an authorized ground upon which this court c an grant permission to file a successive habeas petition in the district court. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismiss al of J. B. Pease’s third 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and DENY his application for leave to file a successive habeas petition in the district court.