* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral 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 

### MAY 23 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LEONARD D. WHITE, SR., Petitioner - Appellant,

v. GLYNN BOOHER, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 02-5008 (D.C. No. 00-CV-611-E) (Northern District of Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , McKAY , and MURPHY , 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

This case is before the court on Leonard White’s pro se requests for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) and for permis sion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis . White seeks a COA so that he can appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petiti on. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We grantWhite’s request to proceed in forma pauperis

. Nevertheless, because White has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” this court denies his request for a COA and dismisses this appeal. Id. § 2253(c)(2). White pleaded guilty in Oklahoma state court to Unl awful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (methamphetamine), A fter Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. He was sentenced to twenty y ears’ imprisonment. After exhausting his state remedies, White filed the inst ant § 2254 habeas petition rasing the following three claims: (1) his guilty p lea was not knowing and voluntary; (2) he was denied effective assistance o f counsel during the entry of his guilty plea; and (3) his guilty plea was invali d because the state trial court failed to follow established procedures for accepti ng such a plea. After reviewing the state court record, including the transcripts o f White’s plea hearing and the hearing on the motion to withdraw plea, the distric t court concluded that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ resolution of White’s coerced plea and ineffective assistance claims was not contrary to o r an unreasonable application of-3-

Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). As to White’s claim that the state trial court failed to comply with state proce dures regarding the acceptance of a guilty plea, the district court concluded that th e claim was not cognizable in a § 2254 petition because it involved a simple allege d error of state law. See Lewis v. Jeffers , 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990) (holding that “federal h abeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law”). Accordingl y, the district court concluded that White was not entitled to habeas relief and di smissed White’s petition. This court may issue White a COA only if he “has ma de a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). He can make such a showing by demonstrating “that reasonab le jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petit ion should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented wer e adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotation omitted). This court has closely review ed White’s application for a COA and appellate brief, the district court’s order , and the entire record on appeal. That review demonstrates that the districtcourt’s resolution of White’s petition is not reasonably debatable and that the i ssues he seeks to present on appeal are not deserving of further proceedings. A ccordingly, we GRANT White’s request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis , DENYWhite’s request-4-

for a COA, and DISMISS this appeal for substantially those reasons set out in the district court’s order dated January 9, 2002.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge