* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without o ral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court ge nerally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and ju dgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

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

### AUG 8 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JAMES BENJAMIN WHITE, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. BOULDER COUNTY, CO; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents - Appellees. No. 02-1130 (D.C. No. 01-Z-2377) (D. Colorado)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , HENRY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
James B. White, a pro se state prisoner, brought th is petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising three grounds for relief. He asserts the Colorado district court was without jurisdiction to revoke his deferr ed sentence, that he was illegally extradited from Utah to Colorado, and that the evidence underlying his-2-

conviction was the result of an unlawful arrest. T he district court observed that Mr. White’s petition indicated he had separate proc eedings on each of the first two claims still pending in the state courts. Acco rdingly the court dismissed those claims without prejudice for failure to exhau st. The court abstained from exercising jurisdiction over the third claim under Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971), which prohibits federal courts from inte rfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumsta nces the court found Mr. White had not shown. Mr. White thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court construed as one pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), alleging that he had exhausted his claim challenging his extradition. The court d enied the motion, holding that when, as here, a prisoner has been returned to the demanding state, he may no longer seek habeas relief challenging his confineme nt on grounds arising in the asylum state. The court denied Mr. White’s requestto proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and denied his application for a certificate of appealability. Mr. White appeals, raising only the district court’ s disposition of his extradition claim. He contends he was illegally extradited from Utah to Colorado because he was not allowed court appearances in Uta h before being extradited. Mr. White filed a supplemental pleading with this c ourt asserting that he has exhausted his state court remedies. As best we can tell from the original case1 It thus appears that Mr. White’s challenge to his guilty plea is still

pending in state court. -3- number shown on the attached Colorado Supreme Courtorder denying the petition for writ of mandamus, it concerns Mr. White’s chall enge to his extradition. 1 We therefore address Mr. White’s extradition claim.

Before a fugitive in custody is extradited to the d emanding state, he may challenge the authority of the asylum state by seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus. Yet “once the priso ner has been returned to the demanding state, the writ of habeas corpus is no longer available to challenge his confinement upon grounds arising in the asylum state.” Gee v. State of Kansas , 912 F.2d 414, 416 (10th Cir. 1990) (citations omi tted) (quoting Frisbie v. Collins , 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952)). In this case, Mr. Whi te claims he was extradited before he could challenge the extradition procedures of the asylum state, a claim which he may no longer pu rsue via a request for federal habeas relief. See id.; see also Remeta v. Singletary , 85 F.3d 513, 518-19 (11th Cir. 1996) (failure of asylum state to provide peti tioner pre-extradition hearing did not deprive demanding state of jurisdiction to try petitioner on criminal charges); Eckert v. Tansy , 936 F.2d 444, 450 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal habeas relief cannot be granted “on the ground of illegal extradi tion”); Shack v. Attorney General , 776 F.2d 1170, 1172 (3d Cir. 1985) (deprivation o f right to preextradition hearing did not render petitioner’s sub sequent confinement illegal or-4-

prevent state from prosecuting him). Accordingly, Mr. White’s claim for federal habeas relief on this issue is plainly without meri t. To be entitled to a COA, a petitioner must make a s ubstantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a demonstrati on that requires a showing that the matter was debatable among reasonable jurists o r that the issue presented required further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). As discussed above, Mr. White has not made such a showing. We therefore deny his request for a COA and his motionto proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss his appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour Circuit Judge