UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ ROBERT R. YERTON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant,

v. JASON BRYANT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 18-5034 (D.C. No. 4:15-CV -00130-GKF-PJC) (N.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

________________ _________________ Before EID , KELLY , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Robert R. Yerton, Jr., a pro se Oklahoma inmate, wants to appea l from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We deny the certificate of appeal ability (COA) he seeks and dis miss this appeal. A jury convicted Yerton of two c ounts of child sexual abuse (Co unts II and III) and one count of lewd moles tation (Count IV). He was sent enced consecutively to twelve years on Count II, twelv e years with the last four su spended on Count III, and three years suspended on Cou nt IV. The Oklahoma Court of C riminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed his convictions on direct appeal and denied his petition for

* This order is not binding preced ent, except under the doctrine s of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent w ith Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### September 18, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 rehearing. The state district c ourt denied his application for post-conviction relief, which the OCCA affirmed. Yerton then filed this pro se § 2254 application. He asserted sixteen grounds for relief, which the district judge consolidated into fourteen grounds. The district judge denied relief on all grounds and denied him a COA, but al lowed him to proceed on appeal without prepayment of filing and docketing fees. A COA may issue only upon “a subs tantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c)(2). To satisfy thi s burden, Yerton must show “that reasonable jurists co uld debate whether (or, for tha t matter, agree that) the [application] should have been res olved in a different manner o r that the issues presented were adequate to des erve encouragement to proceed fur ther.” Slack v.
McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). If the application was denied on proce dural grounds, he must not only show that jurists would debate “whether the petiti on states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right,” but he must also show “that jurists of r eason would find it debatable whether the district [ judge] was correct in [his] pro cedural ruling.” Id. If a claim was adjudicated on the meri ts in state court, that decisi on is entitled to deference: unless it “was cont rary to, or involved an unreasona ble application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme C ourt of the United States,” or “was based on an unr easonable determ ination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2).3 We liberally construe Yerton’s pro se materials. See Hall v. Scott , 292 F.3d 1264, 1266 (10th Cir. 2002). He seeks a COA on the following issues: (1) whether he received ineffective assistance of counse l; (2) whether he exhausted his due process claims in the Oklahoma courts; (3) whether ina dmissible testimony was present ed at trial, violating his right to due process; (4) whethe r his right to confront witness es was violated; (5) whether the trial court permitted improp er use of testimony from an exc essive number of propensity witnesses; ( 6) whether he was convicted in the absen ce of sufficient evidence of every element of his crimes; (7) whether the trial court den ied him due process by denying him permission to call an expert witness; and (8) wheth er the district judge relied on facts that were unsuppo rted by the record. See Combined Opening Br. & App. for
COA at 17-18. We have reviewed the arguments i n Yerton’s COA application, hi s opening brief, the record on appeal , and the relevant l egal authority. Reasona ble jurists could not debate the propriety of the district judge’s decision. We therefore d eny his request for a COA and dismiss this appeal for subs tantially the reasons articulat ed in the district judge’s cogent decision of M arch 23, 2018. The relevant statute, 28 U.S.C . § 1915(a) permits an appeal to be taken without prepayment of fees, but does not waive the fees. Yerton is obl igated to pay all filing and4 docketing fees ($505). Payment is to be made to the Clerk of C ourt for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Entered for the Court

Terrence L. O’Brien Circuit Judge