Case Name: Lawrence AHLDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Twyla SNIDER; Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma; James L. Saffle, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-20
Citations: 15 F. App'x 693
Docket Number: No. 00-6345
Parties: Lawrence AHLDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Twyla SNIDER; Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma; James L. Saffle, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before EBEL, JOHN C. PORFILIO, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 15
Pages: 693–694

Head Matter:
Lawrence AHLDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Twyla SNIDER; Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma; James L. Saffle, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 00-6345.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
July 20, 2001.
Before EBEL, JOHN C. PORFILIO, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
EBEL, Circuit Judge.
After examining the appellant's brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 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 oral argument.
Lawrence Ahlden, a state prisoner convicted of first-degree rape, seeks a certifi cate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his § 2254 habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (providing that no appeal may be taken from an order denying relief in a § 2254 petition unless the petitioner-appellant first obtains a COA by making "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right"). Ahlden alleges constitutional violations in: (1) the admission of excerpts from the preliminary hearing testimony of Ahlden's father, a prosecution witness who admitted his lack of memory at the time of trial; (2) the prosecutor's alleged failure to disclose to Ahlden that his father was over-medicated and incompetent at the time of the preliminary hearing; (3) the refusal to give requested jury instructions on corroboration of testimony in a rape prosecution and impeachment by prior inconsistent statements; (4) the insufficiency of the evidence; (5) prosecutorial misconduct during trial; (6) the imposition of a 200 year sentence; (7) ineffective assistance of counsel on the part of trial and appellate attorneys; and (8) cumulative error.
This court has reviewed the request for a COA, Ahlden's appellate brief, the magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court's order, and the entire record before us. Our review demonstrates that the Ahlden's § 2254 petition is not deserving of further proceedings, debatable among jurists of reason, or subject to different resolution on appeal. Ahlden's request for a COA is denied for substantially those reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's thoughtful and thorough report and recommendation of May 26, 2000, adopted by the district court on September 8, 2000. This appeal is accordingly DISMISSED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.