T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the * c a se , re s j u d ica ta a n dc o llate ra l es to p p e l. It m a y b e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 (e ff. D e c . 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) a n d1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

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

### D e c e m b e r14,2006 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 BE NJ AM I N R OM E RO ,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 2186 v. D i s tr i ctof N ew M exi co J A M E S JA N E C K A , W ar den,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D . C. N o. CI V - 06 - 68 M CA / RL P)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. B enj ami n R om er o, a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i ty( C O A ) thatw oul d al l ow hi m t o appea l fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der d e n y in g h is h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(1)(A ). B ec au se w e c o n clud e tha t M r. R om er o has fai l ed t o m ake “ a subst anti al show i ng of the den i al of a c on st i tuti on al ri gh t , ” w e den yhis request fo r a C O A , a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ).-2- Backg r ound O n F e b ru a ry1 2 , 1 9 9 8 , a N e w M e x ico sta te c o u rt se n ten c e d B e njam in R o m e ro to a to tal o f

fif tee n y e a rs in c a rc e ra tio n fo r c o n v ictio n s o n fo u r c o u n ts in connec t i on w i th a bur gl ary . T he courts us pended hi s s ent ence and i m pos ed a thr ee y earpr obat i onaryper i od. Pr i ort o s ent enci ng, M r . R om er o s i gned a pl ea a g re e m e n t in w h ich h e a g re e d th a t if h e v io late d th e ter m s o f h is p ro b a tio n , h is pr obat i on w oul d be r evoked a nd hi s s ent ence w oul d be s ubj ectt o habi tual offend er enhan cem ents . A f ter h e v io late d h is p ro b a tio n , the c o u rt re v o k e d h is s us pended s ent ence and i m pos ed an e i ght een y earpr i s on s ent ence bas ed on habi tual offe nderenhanc ement s , w i th ei ghty ear s of the s ent ence s us pended a nd w i th cr edi tfort i m e s erved. A ft ers ervi ng fi ve y ear s of the enha nced s ent ence , M r. R o m ero w as re lease d o n p rob ati o n , w h ich h e a g ain v iolated. T h e c o u rt r evoked hi s pr obat i on and r ei ns t at ed hi s ei ght een y ears ent ence w i th cr edi tfor tim e s e rv e d . I n N ew M exi co s t at e court , M r . R om er o fi l ed a M ot i on forA m ended J udgm ent - Sent ence and foran O r derof D i s char ge on the gr ounds thatthe r ei ns t at ementof hi s s ent ence cons t i tut ed an i m pr operdoubl e pena l ty . A ft erthe courtr ej ect ed hi s cl ai m s , he fi l ed thi s habea s pet i t i on i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew M exi co. H e ar gues thathi s s ent ence vi ol at es the D o u b le J e o p a rd ya n d D u e P ro c e s s p ro te c tio n s o f th e U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n .-3-

T he M agi s tr at e J udge found thatM r . R om er o’ s ar gum entr ai s ed onl ym att er s of s t at e l aw and thatnei therdue pr oces s northe pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tdoubl e j eopar dy w as i m pl i cat ed i n M r . R om er o’ s s ent ence . T he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed the fin d in g s o f

th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e a n d d is m is s e d th e p e titio n . D i s cus s i on A p ri s o n e r m a ya p p e a l th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n fo r r e lie f

u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 o n ly if

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o r t h is C o u rt fir s t is s u e s a C O A . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( A ) . A C O A w i l l i s s ue “onl yi f the appl i canthas 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) . I n or der to m a k e su c h a sh o w in g , a p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te th a t “r e a so n a b le ju rists coul d debat e w hether. . . the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r ent m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to d e se rv e e n c o u ra g e m e n t to pr ocee d fur ther . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). “[ I]tis no t th e p rov ince o f fed era l hab ea s co u rtto ree x am ine s tat e-c o u rt det erm i nat i ons on s t at e- l aw ques t i ons . I n conduct i ng habea s r evi ew , a fe der al cou rti s l i m i t ed to decidi ng w hethera con vict i on viol at ed the C on st i tuti on , l aw s, ortr eat i es of the U ni t ed St at es . ” Est el l e v. McG uir e , 5 0 2 U . S . 6 2 , 6 7 (19 9 1 ). M r. R om er o has gr ounds forhi s habea s pet i t i on onl yi f the N ew M exi co courtvi ol at ed-4-

the fe der al cons t i tut i on w hen i tappl i ed the s ent enci ng enhanc ement s underN ew M e x ic o la w . M r. R o m e ro a rg u e s th a t h is e n h a n c e d se n ten c e v io late d th e D o u b le J eopar dyC l aus e. W e have hel d, how ever , that“[b] eca us e s ent ence s enhanc ed underthe habi tual offe nders t atut es ar e notpuni s hm entforthe pr i oroffe ns e, they do notnor m al l yr ai s e doubl e j eopar dyi s s ues . ” Y par r ea v. D ors ey , 64 F. 3d 577, 57 9 (10th C i r. 19 95 ). M r. R om ero doe s not putforth an yargum ent t o sug gest th a t N e w M e x ico ’s s e n ten c in g e n h a n c e m e n t law d iffe rs f ro m th o se p re v io u sly h e ld c o n stitu tio n a l. M r . R om er o al s o ar gues thatthe N ew M exi co courtvi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o due p ro c e ss . T h e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t p ro h ib its sta te court s fr om depr i vi ng per s ons of l i fe, l i berty , orpr opertyexce pti n acc or dance w i th l aw and es t abl i s hed l egal pr ocedur es . U nderN ew M exi co l aw , s ent enci ng enhanc ement s m aybe appl i ed unt i l the defendanthas s erved hi s ent i r e s ent ence , i ncl udi ng par ol e. Stat e v. R oybal , 9 0 3 P . 2 d 2 4 9 , 2 5 2 (N . M . 1 9 9 5 ). M r. R o m ero h ad n o t com p let ed h is pro b ati o n at th e ti m e the sen tenc ing en h an ce m en ts w ere appl i ed. Si nce the s ent enci ng enhanc ement s w er e author i zed unde ra s t at e l aw thatdoes notvi ol at e the fe der al C ons t i tut i on, the N ew M exi co courtdi d not v i o l a t e M r . Ro me r o ’ s fe d e r a l d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s b ya p p l y i n g th e m.-5-

B ec au se w e find that rea so n ab le j u ri sts co u ld n o t deb ate w h ethe r M r. R om er o’ s pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm anner , w e DE NY M r . R om er o’ s r eques tfora C O A and D I SM I SS th is a p p e a l.

E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge