* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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

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

### DEC 19 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
CONRAD J. BRAUN,

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 02-3258
v. (D.C. No. 02-CV-3048-DES) STATE OF KANSAS, (D. Kansas)

Respondent-Appellee.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , McKAY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining Petitioner’s brief and the appellat e record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument. This is a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 prisoner appeal. In his habeas petition, Mr. Braun sought relief from alleged constitutional errors in four state court convictions for which he had fully served the sente nces imposed. The magistrate-2-

judge recommended that Petitioner be denied federal habeas relief since he was no longer in custody pursuant to a state court judg ment. After consideration of Petitioner’s objections, the district court dismiss ed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although Petitioner originall y characterized his pleading as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, he titled his amended filing a petition for a writ of coram nobis. The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction regardless of how the petition and amended petition were construed. Finding no merit in any of Mr. Braun’s arguments, the district court declined to grant him a certificate of appealability. Petitioner then applied to this court for a certificate of appealability. In order for this court to grant a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a cons titutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To do so, Petitioner must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) th e petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues p resented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v . McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted). We have carefully reviewed Mr. Braun’s brief, the d istrict court’s disposition, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal, or Petitioner’s brief raises an issue which meets o ur standards for the grant of a-3-

certificate of appealability. For substantially th e same reasons as set forth by the district court in its order of July 8, 2002, adopti ng the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, we cannot say “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition shou ld have been resolved in a different manner.” Id. We DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge