Case Name: Dewey JERNIGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric FRANKLIN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-29
Citations: 214 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 06-5180
Parties: Dewey JERNIGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric FRANKLIN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 816–817

Head Matter:
Dewey JERNIGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric FRANKLIN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-5180.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 29, 2007.
Dewey Earl Jernigan, Lexington, OK, pro se.
William R. Holmes, Office of the Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.
This is a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 prisoner appeal. Pursuant to provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the district court denied a certificate of appealability. The trial court's thorough Opinion and Order, filed August 30, 2006, fully and correctly sets forth why it dismissed the petition. We see no reason to repeat that effort.
To obtain a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). In order to meet this burden, Petitioner must demonstrate "that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (quotation omitted).
We have carefully reviewed Petitioner's brief, the district court's disposition, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal, or Petitioner's filing raises an issue which meets our standard for the grant of a certificate of appealability. For substantially the reasons set forth by the district court, we DENY Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability and DIS1MISS 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This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 (eff.Dec.l, 2006) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1 (eff.Jan.l, 2007).