Opinion ID: 804528
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ii. discussion

Text: A COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to our review of a petition for a writ of -3- habeas corpus. Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). We will issue a COA “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, an applicant 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 (2000) (quotation marks omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the entire record as well as Petty’s combined brief and request for a COA. We conclude the OCCA’s decision was not “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” nor did it “result[ ] in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We agree with the district court’s adjudication of the remaining claims; they are either procedurally barred or Petty failed to show they satisfied the “highly deferential” standard applied to the ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See Harrington v. Richter, 131 S.Ct. 770, 788 (2011) (quotation marks omitted). We DENY a COA and DISMISS this matter. Entered by the Court: Terrence L. O’Brien