Opinion ID: 160066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: conclusion

Text: After careful review of the record and consideration of the parties’ arguments, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of habeas relief. Although the court declined to issue a certificate of appealability on the following two issues, Mr. Johnson was allowed to state them at the end of his brief. We reaffirm the denial of a certificate of appealability on the issue that the “continuing threat” aggravating circumstance is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We have repeatedly rejected that proposition. See James v. Gibson , 211 F.3d 543, 559 n.8 (10th Cir. 2000). We likewise reaffirm the denial of a certificate of appealability on the issue that the jury was not adequately instructed on the sentencing scheme because it was not informed it had the option to return a life sentence even if it found aggravation outweighed mitigation. This, too, has been rejected. See LaFevers , 182 F.3d at 717-18. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr.