UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ BRUCE MINGO, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. RICK RAEMISCH; CYNTHIA COFFMAN, Respondents - Appellees. No. 16-1115 (D.C. No. 1:14-CV-03282-RBJ) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFIC ATE OF APPEALABILITY *

________________ _________________ Before KELLY , HOLMES , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Bruce Mingo, a Colorado state prisoner proceeding pro se, 1 seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) so he can appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application for habeas relief. We deny his request for a COA and dismiss this

matter. A jury convicted Mingo of first-degr ee murder, and the state trial court imposed a sentence of life without the pos sibility of parole. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed Mingo’s conviction a nd sentence on direct appeal, and the

* This order is not binding precedent, ex cept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collatera l estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32. 1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 Because Mingo appears pro se, we libe rally construe his combined opening brief and COA application. Gallagher v. Shelton , 587 F.3d 1063, 1067 (10th Cir. 2009). But we don’t assume th e role of his advocate. Id

. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 14, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari. The state district court denied Mingo’s motion for postconviction relief under Colo. R. Crim. P. 35( c), the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Colorado Suprem e Court denied certiorari. Mingo then applied for § 2254 habeas relief. The district court denied Mingo’ s habeas application and also denied Mingo’s requests for a COA. Mingo now asks us to issue a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). But we can do so only if Mingo makes “a substantial show ing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). This means Mingo must “show[] that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petiti on should have been resolved in a different manner or th at the issues presented we re adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mingo asserts three claims: (1) his trial counsel’s ineffectiv eness in several respects violated his Sixth Amendment ri ght to effective assistance of counsel, (2) the trial court violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process when the trial judge offered inducements to the chief pros ecution witness, and (3) the trial court violated his Fift h and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process when the trial judge failed to ensure that Mingo knowingly, intelligen tly, and voluntarily waived his right to testify. 2

2 Mingo asserted a fourth claim in his ha beas petition—that the State violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due-pro cess rights when it failed to consider certain evidence in postconviction proceedings . The district court determined that claim wasn’t cognizable in a federal habe as action. Mingo doesn’t challenge that3 The Colorado Court of Appeals rejected each of these claims on the merits when it affirmed the state district court’s denial of Mingo’s mo tion for postconviction relief. Thus, Mingo had to demonstrate to the district court that the Court of Appeals’ rejection of these claims wa s contrary to, or an unreasona ble application of, clearly established federal law, or that it was based on an unreas onable determination of the facts in light of the evid ence presented in the state court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2). In its 74-page order de nying Mingo’s habeas application, the district court thoroughly cons idered the Court of Appeal s’ treatment of each of Mingo’s claims and determ ined Mingo wasn’t entitle d to habeas relief. We have reviewed Mingo’s combined op ening brief and COA application, the appellate record, the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision, the district court’s order denying habeas relief, and the applicable law. Based on this review, we conclude Mingo hasn’t demonstrated that reasonable jurists could debate the correctness of the district court’s resolution of his habeas application. T hus, we deny Mingo’s request for a COA and dismiss this matter.

Entered for the Court

Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge

determination or reassert th e fourth claim in his comb ined opening brief and COA application.