Case Name: Charles TIGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John WHETSEL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-20
Citations: 125 F. App'x 971
Docket Number: No. 04-6330
Parties: Charles TIGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John WHETSEL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KELLY, O’BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 971–972

Head Matter:
Charles TIGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John WHETSEL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-6330.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 20, 2005.
Richard N. Mann, District Attorney’s Office, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before KELLY, O’BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.
Charles Tiger, a state defendant who was being held pending trial, seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing both his habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and his motions for reduction of state bond during the pendency of his habeas proceedings. Upon recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district court denied the petition because the remedy sought by Mr. Tiger in his petition, dismissal of state charges, was unavailable, and denied the motion for a reduction of bond because the federal court lacked the power to review the state court's bond determination. R. Docs. 15 & 19. Because we determine that Mr. Tiger has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000), we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.
After consideration of the materials submitted by Mr. Tiger, it is apparent that the conclusions of the district court, upon adoption of the reports and recommendations of the magistrate judge, are not reasonably debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Mr. Tiger attempts to raise additional issues in his brief before this court, but such issues are deemed waived in that he did not raise them before the district court. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976).
We DENY Mr. Tiger's application for a COA, his motion for IFP status, and DISMISS the appeal.