Case Name: Victor LOPEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. Trais TRANI, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-26
Citations: 434 F. App'x 758
Docket Number: No. 11-1186
Parties: Victor LOPEZ, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Travis TRANI, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents — Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 434
Pages: 758–758

Head Matter:
Victor LOPEZ, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Travis TRANI, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents — Appellees.
No. 11-1186.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 26, 2011.
Victor Lopez, Limón, CO, pro se.
Jonathan Patrick Fero, John Jacob Fuerst, III, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.
After this court denied his request for a certificate of appealability, see Lopez v. Trani, 628 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir.2010), Petitioner filed a post-judgment motion asking the district court to strike certain statutes as unconstitutional. The court denied his motion, and Petitioner filed a notice of appeal.
To appeal the denial of his post-judgment motion in this habeas case, Petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability. See Dulworth v. Jones, 496 F.3d 1133, 1135-36 (10th Cir.2007). We conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the district court erred in denying Petitioner's post-judgment motion, see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct; 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000), and we therefore DENY Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. Petitioner's motion to proceed informa pauperis is also DENIED.
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.