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

### A u gu s t11,2006 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 FRED F. FRAN ZON E, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. B IL L O W E N S , G o v e rn o r, e t a l.; J O H N SU T H E R S, the A t t orney G ener al of the St at e of Col or ado, R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1122 ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - C V - 0 2 6 3 3 - Z L W)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R DENYI NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. Fr ed F. Fr anzone , a s t at e i nm at e pr ocee di ng pr o s e, s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of ap p ea labili ty(“C O A ”) to a p p ea l th e d istri ct co u rt ’s dism issal of h is pe ti ti o n fo r a w r i tof habe as corpus fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254, and s ubs equentdeni al of a C O A . T he d i stri ctcou rtcon cl ud ed thatM r. F ranzon e had fai l ed to exh aust h is s ta te re m e d ie s . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (b )( 1 )( A ). M r . Fr anzone w as convi ct ed, fol l ow i ng a j uryt r i al , on A ugus t30, 1998, of ( 1 ) e n d a n g e r i n g p u b l i c tr a n s p o r t a t i o n , a n d ( 2 ) me n a c i n g . R. Do c . 3 , a t t a c h . He w as s ent ence d t o a fi ve y ear s on count1 and tw o y ear s on count2, t o run concurr ent l yw i th count1, “pl us anyt erm s of par ol e author i zed byC R S 18- 1-- 2 -

105( 1) ( A ) ( V ) . ” H e s erved foury ear s i n pr i s on, w as par ol ed, and then w as r eturned t o pr i s on aft era par ol e vi ol at i on. I n hi s habea s pet i t i on, M r . Fr anzone chal l enges t he mandat orypar ol e t erm on s ever al gr ounds . O n appea l , he r ai s es several m ore i ssues. I tappea r s thatM r . Fr anzone had a s t at e di r ectappea l , w i th cert i or ar i deni ed on D ece m ber20, 1999. H e al s o s oughtr el i ef unde rC ol o. R . A pp. P. 21, and thos e r es ul t ed i n deni al s on J ul y6, 2003 and A ugus t24, 2005. H e al s o l i s t s thr ee pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs underC ol o. R . C r i m . P. 35. R . D oc. 3 at4. T o obt ai n a C O A , M r . Fr anzone m us tm ake a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the d en ial o f a co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t. 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(2). “W h en the d istri ct co u rt d en ies a h ab ea s p eti ti o n o n p roc ed u ral gro u n d s w ith o u t r ea ch ing the p ri so n er’s under l y i ng cons t i tut i onal cl ai m , a C O A s houl d i s s ue w hen the pr i s oners how s , at l east , that j uri st s of reason w ou l d find i tdeb at able w hetherthe p et i t i on st at es a v a lid c laim o f

th e d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t an d th a t ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe di s tr i ctcour tw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” S lack v . M cD an iel , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ). A ft err evi ew i ng the r ecor d on appea l , w e conc l ude thatM r . Fr anzone has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thatthe di s tr i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng conce rni ng exhaus t i on of the cl ai m s m ade i n the pet i t i on i s r eas onabl ydebat abl e. W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ct courtthatM r . Fr anzone ’ s effor t s t o ut i l i ze the or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on of the C ol or ado Supr eme C our tdoes notcons t i tut e “fai rpr es ent at i on” of hi s cl ai m s for- 3 -

p u rp o s e s o f

e x h a u s tio n . S e e C a s tille v . P e o p le s , 4 8 9 U .S . 3 4 6 , 3 5 1 (1 9 8 9 ). A l though M r . Fr anzone al s o ar gues thathe fi l ed thr ee Rul e 35 mot i ons i n 2000, hi s pet i t i on does noti ndi cat e thatthi s cl ai m w as i ncl uded, butr egar dl es s , he w oul d nothave c om pl et e exha us t i on havi ng fai l ed t o appea l . H e pr ovi des no rat i on al e as t o w hyexh aust i on m i gh tno tapp l y . A l tho ug h w e con strue pro se pet i t i ons l i ber al l y , t he pr o s e pet i t i onerhas the bur den of pr ovi di ng the r el evant fac t s , part i cul ar l yw her e the di s tr i ctcourtr ai s ed the exha us t i on i s s ue. See H al l v. B ell m o n , 9 3 5 F . 2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). W e D E N Y t he C O A , D E N Y l eave t o pr ocee d I FP, and D I SM I SS t he a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge