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

### A u gu s t15,2006 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 S H A W N L O U IS J A C O B S ,

Pet i t i oner - A ppel l ant , N o. 06- 2130 v . ( D. C. No. CI V- 0 5 - 1 1 8 3 BB/ W PL) R O B E R T U L I B A R R I , W ar den, Sout hern N ew M exi co C orr ect i onal F a c i l i ty ; AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L F OR T HE S T AT E OF NE W M E XI CO , (D . N e w M e x .)

R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. OR DER B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ppel l anti s a s t at e pr i s oner , appea r i ng pr o s e, w ho s eeks habea s r el i ef pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254. O n February21, 1992, A ppel l antent er ed a noco n testp lea to the fe lon yo ffen se o f re ce iving stolen p rop erty . T h e state c o u rt gave hi m an ei ght een- m onth s us pended s ent ence . O n J ul y29, 1992, A ppel l ant p l e a d e d g u i l ty t o p o s s e s s i o n o f a fi r e a r m b y a fe l o n , r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r ty, and con spi racyt o co m m i tforgery . H e w as sent enced t o a tot al of thr ee y ears ’ im p riso n m e n t fo r th e se o ffe n se s. H is e a rlier e ig h tee n -m o n th se n ten c e w a s s e t to run con curr entl yw i th h i s three- y ear s entence for the lat er conv i ct i on s. I n O ct ober1994, A ppel l antw as r el eas ed fr om pr i s on. T hr ee da y s l at erhe- 2-

ki l l ed a hi gh s chool s tudent . I n 1996, he w as convi ct ed of murde r , ki dnapi ng, a ttem p ted se x u a l p e n e tra tio n , an d se v e ra l re late d o ffe n se s. H e w a s s e n ten c e d to l i fe i m pr i s onm entpl us 69. 5 y ear s . A ppel l anthas fi l ed s ever al appea l s and p e titio n s in b o th s ta te a n d fe d e ra l c o u rt . H e appe al s t o thi s courtchal l engi ng hi s 1996 s ent ence on the gr ound that hi s 1992 convi ct i ons w er e i nval i d. A ppel l anthas ar gued pr evi ous l yi n r el at ed, n e v e rth e les s d istin c t, pe tit io n s th a t h e w a s n o t a fe lo n w h e n h e a lleg e d ly comm i t t ed hi s 1992 offe ns e of fel on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm beca us e he ha d not then bee n s ent ence d forhi s ear l i er1992 s t ol en pr opertyoffe ns e. T hi s ar gum ent w a s reje c te d b ya s ta te ju d g e a n d a fe d e ra l m a g is tr a te ju d g e . See Pr opos ed F in d in g s a n d R e c o m m e n d e d D is p o s itio n , 2 (D .N .M . M a r. 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 ). T h e m a g i s tr a t e j u d g e , w h o c o n s tru e d A p p e l l a n t ’ s a r g u m e n t s g e n e r o u s l y, r ecomm ended thatA ppel l ant ’ s 1992 convi ct i ons coul d no l ongerbe open t o di r ect o r c o lla te ra l a tta c k b e c a u s e th e tim e to b ri n g a h a b e a s p e titio n h a d e x p ir e d . Id . at 5 . W e a g re e . In a d d iti o n , the d istric t co u rt fo u n d th a t ev e n if A p p e llan t co u ld d e m o n stra te h is e n tit lem e n t to e q u itab le to lli n g , “h is F if th A m e n d m e n t cla im fa ils beca us e the r i ghtt o gr and j uryi ndi ctm entdoes notappl yt o s t at e pr os ecut i ons . ” O r derA dopt i ng M agi s tr at e J udge’ s Pr opos ed Fi ndi ngs A nd R ecomm ended D i s pos i t i on, 1 ( D . N . M . A pr . 7, 2006) ( ci t i ng A ldridg e v . Ma rs h a ll , 765 F. 2d 63, 68 ( 6th C i r . 1985) . T he di s tr i ctj udge al s o det erm i ned thathi s i neffect i ve assistan ce o f c o u n sel claim an d h is de m an d fo r an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g w ere- 3-

w ith o u t m e ri t. Id . at1- 2. A ppel l antnow s eeks fr om thi s courta ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty . T he iss u e s h e ra ise s o n a p p e a l ar e id e n tica l to th o se b ro u g h t b e fo re th e d istric t co u rt. T o gr anta ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty , A ppel l antm us tm ake a “s ubs t ant i al s h o w in g o f

th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ) ( 1 9 9 4 ). T o m e e t th is b u rd e n , A p p e llan t m u st d e m o n stra te “ th a t re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld debat e w hether( or , forthatm att er , agr ee that ) the pet i t i on s houl d have be en re so lv e d in a d iffe re n t 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 des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). W e h av e c are fu ll yrev iew ed A p p ell an t’ s b ri ef, the m ag istrate jud g e’s re c o m m e n d a tio n s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is p o s itio n , a n d th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l. N othi ng i n the fa ct s , the r ecor d on appea l , orA ppel l ant ’ s fi l i ng r ai s es an i s s ue w hi ch meet s ours t andar d forthe gr antof a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty . For s ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons s etfor th bythe di s tr i ctcourti n i t s or derof A pr i l 7, 2006, w e ca nnots ay“thatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether( or , forthat m att er , agr ee that ) the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm anner . ” Id.- 4-

A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY A ppel l ant ’ s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i tyand D I SM I SS the appe al . A ppel l ant ' s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el i s deni ed.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge