Case Name: William Ray PRATT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marty SIRMONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-08
Citations: 216 F. App'x 742
Docket Number: No. 06-6351
Parties: William Ray PRATT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marty SIRMONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 216
Pages: 742–743

Head Matter:
William Ray PRATT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marty SIRMONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-6351.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Feb. 8, 2007.
William Ray Pratt, Stringtown, OK, pro se.
Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
DAVID M. EBEL, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner-Appellant William Ray Pratt seeks a certificate of appealability ("COA"), see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), that would permit him to appeal the district court's denial of his habeas petition asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Through his habeas petition, Pratt challenged his five Oklahoma convictions for first degree rape by instrumentation and one conviction for child sexual abuse, all committed after former conviction of a felony, as well as the forty-five-year sentences imposed for each conviction to nan consecutively. In this § 2254 proceeding, Pratt asserts a number of grounds for relief, arguing: the trial court erred in admitting, and defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to, evidence of other crimes involving Pratt's sexually abusing two other girls several years earlier; the cumulative effect of several improper prosecutorial comments and other trial errors deprived Pratt of a fundamentally fair trial; his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to file a speedy trial motion, failing to assist Pratt in his defense, failing to obtain full discovery from the State, failing to assist Pratt with motions he was filing pro se, failing to request that Pratt's sentences run concurrently, and failing to investigate and present additional evidence in Pratt's defense; and the trial court abused its discretion in denying Pratt the opportunity to make a record before the jury of the witnesses and evidence Pratt wanted defense counsel to present in his defense.
Pratt will be entitled to a COA if he can make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Pratt can make such a showing by establishing 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, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (quotations omitted). However, for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, adopted by the district court, we conclude Pratt has failed to make this showing. We, therefore, DENY his motion for a COA and DISMISS this appeal. In light of that, Pratt's motions for abeyance and rehearing en banc of his request for oral argument and appointment of counsel are DENIED as moot.
. The district court granted Pratt's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).