T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a se , res ju d ica ta a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, fo r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A p ril17,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT R O N A L D G R A H A M,

P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, N o. 07- 3018 v . ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CV- 3 1 7 6 - M LB) AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE S T A T E O F K A N S A S ; and D A V ID M cK U N E , W ar den, L ans i ng C o rr e c t i o n a l F a c i l i ty,

R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. (D . K a n .)

ORDE R DE NYI NG CE RT I F I CAT E OF AP P EA LA BI LI TY AND AP P LI CAT I ON F OR LE AVE TO P ROCE ED INF O R M A PA U PER IS * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. O n A u g u s t 1 8 , 2 0 0 0 , fo llo w in g a b e n c h tr ia l in G e a ry C o u n ty, K a n s a s , a s t at e tr i al courtconvi ct ed R onal d G r aham forpos s es s i on of m ethamphet ami ne a n d p o s s e s s io n o f

m a riju a n a . T h e c o u rt th e re a f te r s e n te n c e d M r. G ra h a m , i nt er a lia , t o 150 m onths of i ncar cer at i on t o run cons ecut i vel yt o a pr i orpr i s on s e n te n c e , m a tte rs w h ic h w e re a ffir m e d o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. See Stat e v. G r aham , 46 P. 3d 1177, 1179, 1184 ( K an. 2002) . M r . G r aham t hen s oughtpos t - convi ct i on-2-

r e l i e f i n two d i s t i n c tKa n s a s s t a t e h a b e a s p e t i t i o n s ; a f t e rc o n s o l i d a t i n g th e two pet i t i ons on Sept ember14, 2004, and hol di ng a hea r i ng on N ovember29, 2004, the s t at e tr i al courtdeni ed hi s r eques t ed r el i ef on J anuary5, 2005. T he K ans as C o u rto f A p p ea ls affirm ed o n M arc h 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , an d the K an sas S u p rem e C o u rt deni ed r evi ew on J une 8, 2006. Fol l ow i ng al l thi s , on J une 28, 2006, M r . G r aham fi l ed i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof K ans as a pro se h a b e a s p e t i t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 4 . In a 2 1 -pa g e m em o ran d u m an d o rde r, the d istri ct co u rtd en ied M r. G ra h a m ’s r e q u e ste d re lief, ap p ly in g th e A n tit e rro rism a n d E ffe c tiv e D e a th Penal tyA ctof 1996 ( “A E D PA ”) , w hi ch al l ow s a fe der al courtt o gr anthabea s r el i ef onl yi f the cha l l enged s t at e courtdeci s i on on the mer i t s w as “contr aryt o, or i nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as d e te rm in e d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt o f th e U n ite d S ta te s .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )( 1 ). Speci fi cal l y , M r . G r aham r ai s ed, and the di s tr i ctcourtr ej ect ed, the fol l ow i ng three con t enti on s. 1. M r . G r aham as s ert ed thathi s 2000 convi ct i on w as obt ai ned thr ough th e a d m iss io n in e v id e n c e o f a p rio r c o n stitu tio n a llyin f irm d ru g c o n v ictio n in A r kans as . B ut , the di s tr i ctcourtfound no evi dence thatthe A r kans as convi ct i on, o r e v e n a n yc ir c u m s ta n c e s re g a rd in g it, w a s in tr o d u c e d in h is 2 0 0 0 K a n s a s tr ia l. I ns t ead, the di s tr i ctcourtfound thatevi dence fr om y etanothertr i al – i nvol vi ng a 1986 K ans as drug convi ct i on – w as i ntr oduced i n hi s 2000 t r i al and, i n turn, that-3-

c e rt a in e v id e n c e f

ro m th e A rk a n s a s tr ia l w a s in tr o d u c e d in th e 1 9 8 6 p ro c e e d in g s . S eeking t o co nst rue M r. G raham ’s peti t i on gen erousl y , the co urtproceed ed to ask the ques t i on w hetherthes e ci r cumst ance s r ender ed hi s 2000 convi ct i on p ro b lem a tic; a f

ter u n tan g lin g a ra th e r c o lo rf u l se rie s o f

e v e n ts, it fo u n d n o t. Speci fi cal l y , the evi dence admi t t ed i n 1986 fr om the A r kans as pr ocee di ngs co n ce rne d o n lythe n ature o f M r. G rah am ’s de fe n se. In the A rka n sas c ase , M r. Gr a h a m u n s u c c e s s f

u l l yc o n t e n d e d th a tth e d ru g s a ti s s u e we r e n o th i s o wn beca us e the cl othes i n w hi ch theyw er e found be l onged t o s om eone e l s e. I n the s u b s e q u e n t1 9 8 6 Ka n s a s c a s e , M r . Gr a h a m a p p a r e n t l yma d e a ru n a tth i s s a me d efen se a n d the c o u rtad m itted e v iden ce co n ce rnin g the n ature o f M r. G rah am ’s i dent i cal defe ns e i n the A r kans as pr ocee di ng t o s how hi s know l edge a nd l ack of m is ta k e in th e p o s s e s s io n o f th e d ru g s a t is s u e in 1 9 8 6 . S e e g e n e ra lly F e d . R. E v id . 4 0 4 (b ) (“ E v id e n c e o f o th e r c rim e s, w ro n g s, o r a c ts is n o t ad m iss ib le to p ro v e th e c h a ra c te r o f a p e rs o n in o rd e r t o s h o w a c tio n in c o n fo rm ity th e re w ith . I tm ay , how ever , be admi s s i bl e forotherpurpos es , s uch as pr oof of mot i ve, o p p o rt u n ity, in te n t, p re p a ra tio n , p la n , know l edge , iden ti ty , o r abs ence of m is take oracci dent. . . . ” ( emphasi s added) ) . N o evi dence r egar di ng the A r kans as con vict i on i t sel f w as i ntr od uced du ri ng the 1 98 6 p roceedings. R a th e r r e m a rk a b ly, th e p ro c e s s m o re o r l e s s s e e m e d to re p e a t its e lf in 2 0 0 0 . Faci ng y etanotherdrug char ge and w i th perhaps undue fa i th i n the ada ge thatt he thi r d t i m e’ s t he cha r m , M r . G r aham agai n tr i ed the s ame “cl othes - ar en’ t - m i ne”-4-

defe ns e; the K ans as s t at e court , i n tur n, perm i t t ed the pr os ecut i on t o i ntr oduce e v id e n c e f

ro m th e 1 9 8 6 trial to sh o w M r. G ra h a m ’s p e c u liar a ttac h m e n t to th is d e fe n s e a n d , th u s , k n o w le d g e a n d la c k o f m is ta k e . G i ven thes e fa ct s , t he di s tr i ctcour tas s es s i ng M r . G r aham’ s fede r al habea s pet i t i on found no t ai nti n hi s 2000 convi ct i on. E vi dence r egar di ng the cha l l enged A rk a n sa s c o n v ictio n w a s n o t d ire c tlyin tro d u c e d in th e 2 0 0 0 trial. A n d th e o n ly evi dence fr om the A r kans as t r i al i ntr oduced i n the 1986 pr ocee di ng conce rned the natur e of the defens e M r . G r aham hi m s el f had a s s er t ed; evi dence aboutthe al l egedl yuncons t i tut i onal A r kans as convi ct i on w as notpr es ent ed eve n i n the 1 9 8 6 trial. 2. I n hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on, M r . G r aham al s o cont ended thatthe 2000 K ans as t r i al courtdeni ed hi m adequa t e l egal r epr es ent at i on w hen he moved t o pr ocee d pro se a n d w ith d ra w h is p lea a g re e m e n t. T h e K a n sa s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls as s es s i ng M r . G r aham’ s habea s pet i t i on, how ever , r ej ect ed thi s ar gum entaft er fin d in g th a t th e trial c o u rt had ful l yand ade quat el yadvi s ed hi m of the pot ent i al adver s e cons equenc es of hi s deci s i on, and thathi s s t and- bycouns el w as pr es ent an d av ail ab le t o h im thro u g h o u t th e p roc ee d ing o n h is m o ti o n . T h e d istri ct co u rt a ss e ss in g h is fe d e ra l h a b e a s p e tit io n fo u n d n o th in g in th is a n a ly sis c o n tra ryto c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w. 3. Fi nal l y , M r . G r aham ar gued thatthe s t at e courti n hi s 2000 cas e fa i l ed t o arr ai gn him on al l of the charges on w hich he w as even tuall ytri ed an d thus,-5-

thatthe “tr i al courtl acke d j ur i s di ct i on due t o a def ect i ve compl ai nt . ” The K ans as C o u rto f A p p ea ls, h o w ev er, he ld this i ssu e w aive d u n d er K an sas law b ec au se M r. G r aham di d notr ai s e a t i m el yobj ect i on attr i al oron di r ectappea l . T hi s fac t , t he d istric t co u rt h e ld , w a s d isp o sitiv e o f M r. G ra h a m ’s fe d e ra l h a b e a s c laim : “[w ] hen a feder al habea s pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m has been de faul t ed i n s t at e courton an i ndepende nts t at e gr ound, fede r al habea s cour t s w i l l notgener al l yaddr es s the i s s ue. ” M em. and O r derat16 ( ci t i ng C ol em an v. Thomps on , 501 U . S. 722, 750 (1 9 9 1 ); K l ei n v. Neal , 45 F. 3d 1395, 1397 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ) . St i l l , the di s tr i ct courtadded, r evi ew m aybe had fora pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed cl ai m on “a s how i ng o f c a u se fo r th e d e fa u lt an d re su lti n g p reju d ice , o r in o rd e r to p re v e n t a fundament al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” Id . at17 ( ci t i ng C ol em an , 5 0 1 U .S . a t 7 5 0 ). T he di s tr i ctcourtpr ocee ded t o undert ake a n anal y s i s of ea ch of thes e r equi s i t es a n d fo u n d th e e v id e n c e o n e a c h p ro n g w a n tin g in th is c a s e . Id . at17- 20. O n D ec em b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 , M r. G rah am ap p li ed in the d istri ct co u rtfo r a C erti fica te of

A p p ea labili ty(“C O A ”). C it ing A E D P A an d S u p rem e C o u rt p rec ed en t, the d istri ct co u rtd en ied th e C O A o n Jan u ary3 , 2 0 0 7 , ruli n g that M r. G r aham fai l ed t o m ake a “s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” O r derof 01/ 03/ 2007 at1- 2 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . M r . G r aham al s o appl i ed to th e d istric t co u rt fo r le a v e to a p p e a l in fo rm a p a u p e ris , w h ich th e d istri ct co u rt deni ed af

t erfi ndi ng t hatM r . G r aham had a gr os s annual i ncome i n exce s s of $10, 000 byvi rtue of hi s part i ci pat i on i n a pr i s on i ndus tr i es pr ogr am; a pr i s on-6-

s avi ngs acc ounti n exce s s of $2, 700; and an i ns t i tut i onal acc ounti n exce s s of $ 7 0 0 . T h e d istric t co u rt f u rth e r fo u n d th a t, af

ter M r. G ra h a m ’s a ss ista n c e to h is w i dow ed mot herand paym entof hi s pr i s on r oom and boar d, he s t i l l net t ed appr oxi m at el y$5, 000 annual l yfr om hi s pr i s on i ndus tr i es i ncome. “I n other w or ds , [M r . G r aham] i s noti ndi gent . ” O r derof 02/ 01/ 2007 at1. I n the al t ernat i ve, the di s tr i ctcourtrul ed thatM r . G r aham fai l ed t o “demonstr at e the exi s t ence of a r eas oned, non- fr i vol ous ar gum enton the l aw and fa ct s i n s uppor tof the i s s ues r ai s ed on appe al . ” Id . a t 1 -2 . M r . G r aham now s eeks t o appea l t o us i n or dert o pur s ue es s ent i al l ythe sam e a rgu m en ts he raised in the d istri ct co u rt . W e m ayissue a C O A “o n lyif [M r. G r aham] has m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . M r . G r aham m aym ake thi s s how i ng byconvi nci ng us that“r eas onabl e j ur i s t s w oul d fi nd the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s as s es s m entof the cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s debat abl e orw r ong. ” Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 537 U . S. 322, 338 ( 2003) . Fors ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons gi ven bythe di s tr i ctcour t , and su m m a riz e d a b o v e , w e fin d th a t M r. G ra h a m fa ils to m a k e th is s h o w in g o r to s at i s fyes t abl i s hed l egal s t andar ds forpr ocee di ng in fo rm a p a u p e ris . See 28 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ; see also F ed . R . A p p . P . 2 4 ; 10 th C ir . R . 2 4 . 1 . A cc o rdin g ly , M r. G r aham’ s appl i cat i on fora C O A and mot i on forl eave t o pr ocee d i n f or m a-7-

pa up eris ar e deni ed and hi s appea l i s di s m i s s ed. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

N ei l M . G or s uch C i r cui tJ udge