Case Name: David CORDOVA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James JANECKA, Warden; Gary King, Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-23
Citations: 441 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 11-2171
Parties: David CORDOVA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James JANECKA, Warden; Gary King, Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 613–614

Head Matter:
David CORDOVA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James JANECKA, Warden; Gary King, Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 11-2171.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Nov. 23, 2011.
David Cordova, Las Cruces, NM, pro se.
Margaret Elizabeth Mclean, Esq., Office of the Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner seeks a certificate of appeala-bility to appeal the district court's denial of his § 2254 habeas petition. A state jury convicted Petitioner of residential burglary and larceny over $2500, and the trial judge sentenced him to fourteen years in prison. Petitioner appealed his conviction, lost, and then filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court raising claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. The state district court dismissed Petitioner's claims, and the New Mexico Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari. Petitioner then filed this pro se § 2254 habeas petition, which raises three claims: (1) the admission of prior bad act evidence and prosecutorial misconduct prejudiced his trial, (2) the evidence was insufficient to find that the value of the property exceeded $2500, and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of Petitioner's claims, and after conducting a de novo review, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings, dismissed Petitioner's claims, and denied a certificate of ap-pealability.
To appeal the denial of his habeas petition, Petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). In denying Petitioner's habeas petition, the magistrate judge concluded, and the district court agreed, that the admission of prior felony convictions and any perceived prosecutorial misconduct did not render the trial fundamentally unfair in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the burglary charge. The magistrate judge also concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that the market value of the items taken exceeded $2500. Further, the magistrate judge concluded that Petitioner failed to offer sufficient evidence to support his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. While we agree with the magistrate judge that this is a close case, we also agree with the proposed findings and recommended disposition, and have nothing to add.
After carefully reviewing Petitioner's brief and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the district court erred in dismissing the petition. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). We therefore DENY the application for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
. We liberally construe Plaintiff's pro se filings. See Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kan., 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir.2003).