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

### April 28, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant,

vs. BRENT CROUSE, Warden, Crowley County Correctional Facility; R. O. LAMPERT, Director, Wyoming Department of Corrections; PATRICK CRANK, Wyoming Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. No. 05-8086 (D.C. No. 04-CV-74-B) (D. Wyo.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before KELLY , MCKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant Kevin Robinson, a state inmate , seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) allowing him to appeal the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Robinson has failed to make “a substantial showing of the de nial of a constitutional right” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and accordin gly, we deny his request and dismiss the appeal. Mr. Robinson was convicted by a jury in Wyoming state court of voluntary- 2 -

manslaughter and soliciting a minor to engage in il licit sexual relations, following the death of a fifteen year-old girl, who was alleg edly his girlfriend, and was onemonth pregnant at the time. Mr. Robinson was sente nced to a combined term of twenty-two to twenty-nine years imprisonment. Mr. Robinson filed a direct appeal, but his conviction was affirmed. Robinson v. State , 11 P.3d 361 (Wyo. 2000). Mr. Robinson filed a motion for a new trial , but that was also ultimately denied. Robinson v. State , 64 P.3d 743 (Wyo. 2003). On appeal, Mr. Robinson raises five arguments: (1) a COA should issue because there have been “substantial violations” of his constitutional rights and the district court’s assessment of his claims was d ebatable or wrong; (2) his conviction was obtained through hearsay admitted inviolation of his Confrontation Clause rights; (3) his incarceration was a violation of his right to effective assistance of counsel at trial; (4) his i ncarceration was a violation of his right to effective assistance of counsel on his mot ion for a new trial; and (5) his conviction is in violation of clearly established S upreme Court precedent because the prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In order for this court to grant a COA, Mr. Robinso n must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitution al right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where the district court has rejected Mr. Robinson’s constitutional- 3 -

claims on the merits, he must demonstrate that “rea sonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional c laims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Where the district court has rejected Mr. Robinson’s constitutional claims on pr ocedural grounds, he must demonstrate that “jurists of reason would find it d ebatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. With regards to those claims presented to Wyoming s tate courts (either on direct appeal or on post-conviction appeal) and wer e denied, the district court could not properly issue a writ of habeas corpus un less it found that the state court adjudication resulted in a decision that “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Fe deral law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). It is against these standards that we assess the district court’s denial of Mr. Robinson’s petit ion. Having carefully reviewed the district court’s anal ysis of Mr. Robinson’s claims on appeal, as well as the entire appendix, w e conclude that our standard of review precludes us from arriving at a conclusion d ifferent than the district court. We are persuaded that the reasoning of the state co urts’ conclusions were not- 4 -

contrary to and did not involve an unreasonable app lication of clearly established federal law. As such, we conclude that none of Mr. Robinson’s claims suffice to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal.

Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge