T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a s e , re s ju d ic a ta , a n d c o lla te ra l e s to p p e l. W e l i beral l ycon strue M r. G rady ’s pro se a p p lic a tio n . See Cum m i ngs v. 1 E van s, 1 6 1 F .3 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ), cer t . deni ed, 5 2 6 U . S . 1 0 5 2 (19 9 9 ). T h e d istric t co u rt d e n ied M r. G ra d y ’s r e q u e st fo r a C O A a n d m o tio n to 2 pr ocee d i n f

or m a pauper is (

i f p) . 

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

### Jan u ary2,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 

### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

T E N T H C IRC U IT

GAR Y A. GR ADY, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. A L E S T E P , W a rd e n , L .C .F .; AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE S T AT E OF CO L OR ADO, R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1106 ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - c v - 2 5 6 3 - Z L W)

( C ol or ado)



### ORDER * B efor e M URP HY, S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

G aryA . G r ady , a s t at e pr i s onerappea r i ng pro se , s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of 1 a p p e a lab ili ty(C O A ) to c h a llen g e th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is p e tit io n fo r w rit of habe as corpus pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254. W e s ee no ba s i s forgr ant i ng a 2- 2-

C O A and denyM r . G r ady ’ s appl i cat i on. I n 2002, M r . G r adypl ed gui l tyand w as convi ct ed of a ggr avat ed mot or vehi cl e thefti n C ol or ado’ s J effer s on C ountyD i s tr i ctC our t . T he courts ent ence d h im to tw en ty -fo u r y ea rs i m p ri so n m en t and fiv e y ea rs of m an d atoryp aro le. M r. G ra d ys u b s e q u e n tly f

ile d fo r a n d w a s d e n ie d p o s tc o n v ic tio n re lie f in s ta te c o u rt . Th e Co l o r a d o Co u r to f Ap p e a l s a ffi r me d th i s d e c i s i o n a n d th e Co l o r a d o S u p r e me C our tdeni ed ce r t i or ar i . M r . G r adythen fi l ed thi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 pet i t i on, w hi ch the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed. H e s eeks a C O A , as s ert i ng ( a) the enha ncement of hi s s ent ence bas ed on pr i orconvi ct i ons noti ncorpor at ed i nt o hi s pl ea agr eementvi ol at ed cons t i tut i onal due pr oces s and j ur ytr i al guar ant ees , and ( b) h is c o u n se l w a s in e ffe c tiv e fo r fa ili n g to o bjec t to th e u se o f p rio r c o n v ictio n s in enhanc i ng hi s s ent ence aft ert hos e convi ct i ons w er e omi t t ed fr om the pl ea a g re e m e n t. U n d e r th e A n tit e rro rism a n d E ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a ltyA c t (A E D P A ), a s tate habea s pet i t i oner“has no abs ol ut e ent i t l ementt o appea l a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on. 28 U . S. C . § 2253. ” Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 5 3 7 U .S . 3 2 2 , 3 3 5 (2 0 0 3 ). B e fo re h e m a ya p p e a l, he first m u st o b tain a C O A to p ro v id e th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls ju ri s d ic tio n . S e e id . at336. A C O A w i l l i s s ue onl yi f pet i t i onerm akes “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 . ” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 3 (2 0 0 0 ) T o d o so , p e tit io n e r m u st s h o w “ th a t re a so n a b le ju rists coul d debat e w hether. . . t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r ent- 3-

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 . ” Id . (c ita tio n s a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). I n d e t e r mi n i n g wh e th e rt h e p e t i t i o n e rh a s ma d e th e r e q u i r e d s h o wi n g , we re v iew th e c laim s p re se n ted in h is § 2 2 5 4 p e tit io n a n d g e n e ra llya ss e ss th e ir m e ri t. S e e Mi l l e r - El , 537 U . S. at336. I n doi ng s o, w e “l ook t o the D i s tr i ct C ou rt ’s app l i cat i on of A E D P A t o p et i t i on er’ s const i tuti on al cl ai m s and ask w hetherthatr es ol ut i on w as debat abl e amongstj ur i s t s of r eas on. ” Id . W her e, as h e re , p e tit io n e r’s fe d e ra l h a b e a s c laim s w e re a dju d ica ted o n th e m e rits in sta te court , w e w i l l gr antan appl i cat i on fora C O A “onl yw her e the s t at e courtdeci s i on w as ‘ contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of , cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned byt he Supr eme C our t. . . ’ orw as ‘ bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed i n the St at e courtpr ocee di ng. ’ 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) . ” D ocki ns v. Hi nes , 374 F. 3d 935, 9 3 6 -3 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A s the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed, the Supr eme C our thel d i n Appr endiv. New Jers ey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ), th a t “ [o] therthan the f actof a pr i orconvi ct i on , any fa ct th at i n cre ase s the p en altyfo r a c ri m e b ey o n d the p resc ri b ed statu tory m axi m um m us tbe s ubm i tt ed t o a j ur y , and pr oved bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” Id. at 49 0 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e state se n tenc ing co u rt ’s en h an ce m en t of M r. G ra d y ’s s e n ten c e b a se d u p o n h is p rio r c o n v ictio n s w a s c o n stitu tio n a lly p erm issi b le un d er Ap

p re n d i. T hatenhanc ementpert ai ned t o the s ent ence forthe- 4-

offe ns e t o w hi ch M r . G r adypl ed gui l ty ; i tw as nota s ent ence forthe pr i or convi ct i ons , norw as i ta s ent ence underthe s t at e s t atut e forbei ng an habi tual offe nder . W hi l e the pl ea a gr eementobl i gat ed the s t at e nott o char ge and c onvi ct M r. G rad yo f b eing an h ab itu al offe n d er, i t did n o t ob li g ate the co u rtto ign o re pr i orconvi ct i ons as an aggr egat i ng fac t orw hen i ts ent ence d M r . G r adyfor a g g ra v a ted m o to r v e h icle th e f t. M r. G ra d y ’s in e ffe c tiv e n e ss c laim is s im ilarly fl a we d b e c a u s e i ti s p r e d i c a t e d o n h i s a tt o rn e y ’ s fa i l u r e t o o bj e c to n th e s a me gr ound. C ons equent l y , t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s r es ol ut i on of M r . G r ady ’ s cl ai m s i s not debat abl e among j ur i s t s of r eas on. T u rnin g to M r. G rad y ’s req u est fo r ifp sta tu s, w e c o n c lu d e h e h a s fa iled to sh o w “ th e e x iste n c e o f a re a so n e d , n o n f

riv o lo u s a rg u m e n t o n th e law a n d fa c ts in s uppor tof the i s s ues r ai s ed on appe al . ” McIn tosh v. U. S . P a ro le C o m m ’n , 115 F . 3 d 8 0 9 , 8 1 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). Forthe afor ement i oned r eas ons , w e DE NY M r . G r ady ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d ifp , DE NY hi s appl i cat i on fora C O A , and D I SM I SS th is a p p e a l. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge