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 CERTIFICATE 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-degree murder, and the state trial court 

imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The Colorado Court of 

Appeals affirmed Mingo’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal, and the 

 *

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the 

case, res judicata, and collateral 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 liberally construe his combined opening 

brief and COA application. Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1067 (10th Cir. 

2009). But we don’t assume the role of his advocate. Id. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

July 14, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

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 Supreme 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 showing 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 petition should have been resolved 

in a different manner or that the issues presented were 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 ineffectiveness in several 

respects violated his Sixth Amendment right 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 prosecution witness, and (3) the 

trial court violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process when 

the trial judge failed to ensure that Mingo knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily 

waived his right to testify.2

 

 2

 Mingo asserted a fourth claim in his habeas petition—that the State violated 

his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights when it failed to consider 

certain evidence in postconviction proceedings. The district court determined that 

claim wasn’t cognizable in a federal habeas action. Mingo doesn’t challenge that 
3 

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 motion for postconviction 

relief. Thus, Mingo had to demonstrate to the district court that the Court of Appeals’ 

rejection of these claims was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly 

established federal law, or that it was based on an unreasonable determination of the 

facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(d)(1)-(2). In its 74-page order denying Mingo’s habeas application, the 

district court thoroughly considered the Court of Appeals’ treatment of each of 

Mingo’s claims and determined Mingo wasn’t entitled to habeas relief. 

We have reviewed Mingo’s combined opening 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. Thus, we deny Mingo’s request 

for a COA and dismiss this matter. 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge 

 

determination or reassert the fourth claim in his combined opening brief and COA 

application.