* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** The Honorable John L. Kane, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by desi gnation. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 16 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

TOMI EDWARD JENNINGS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. VANCE EVERETT, Warden, Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penitentiary, in his official capacity; WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees. No. 02-8033 D.C. No. 01-CV-59-B (D. Wyoming)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before O’BRIEN and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges, and KANE , ** Senior District Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination-2-

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Petitioner-Appellant Tomi Edward Jennings appeals f rom the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitionfor a writ of habeas corpus. In order to proceed on appeal, Jennings must obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) from this court. See id. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA will issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the den ial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). Upon consideration, we deny COA anddismiss this appeal. Jennings was convicted of escape from detention andreceived a six-to-nine year sentence. His conviction was affirmed by the Wyoming Supreme Court. In his appellate brief, which we construe as an applic ation for a COA, he raises seven issues: (1) denial of access to legal materi als and the right to selfrepresentation; (2) lack of adequate notice of moti on hearings; (3) improper exclusion of African-Americans from his jury; (4) d enial of speedy trial; (5) denial of credit for time served; (6) improper alteration of trial transcripts; and (7) double jeopardy. The Wyoming Supreme Court has already considered an d decided each of these claims against Jennings. We owe a high level of deference to that court’s decision, even at the COA stage. See Barrientes v. Johnson , 221 F.3d 741, 772 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he determination of whether a COA should issue must be-3-

made by viewing the petitioner’s arguments through the lens of the deferential scheme laid out in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).”), cert. dismissed , 531 U.S. 1134 (2001). We may not grant relief on claims adjudicated on th e merits in state court unless the adjudication: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, orinvolved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Fe deral law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United State s; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unr easonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Having carefully reviewed the arguments Jennings ra ises, we conclude that he has failed to meet the standard required to obta in a COA. Jennings’ application for a COA is therefore DENIED. His app eal is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

John L. Kane Senior District Judge