FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 7, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
LINDA HENNING,
Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 09-2303
v. (Case No. 08-CV-00328-RB-LFG)
(D.N.M.)
ALLEN COOPER, Warden;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, a pro se state prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability to
appeal the district court’s denial of her § 2254 habeas petition. Petitioner was
convicted by a jury of felony murder, kidnapping, conspiracy to commit
kidnapping, criminal solicitation, perjury, tampering with evidence, and
conspiracy to commit tampering with evidence. She was sentenced to a total
sentence of life plus 43.5 years. On appeal, her perjury convictions were reversed
for lack of adequate notice, but her other convictions were affirmed. Petitioner’s
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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.
state habeas petition was denied by the state district court, and the state supreme
court denied her petition for certiorari.
Petitioner then filed the instant federal habeas petition. In it, she asserted
four broad grounds for relief: (1) denial of due process and a fair trial based on
the state courts’ actions, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, (3) prosecutorial
misconduct, and (4) insufficiency of the evidence. Each of these broad claims
included a large number of related and unrelated subclaims. The magistrate judge
individually considered each of the approximately 219 separate claims he
identified in the petition. He concluded that several claims had not been
exhausted in the state court but numerous other claims had been exhausted and
should be considered on the merits. The district court independently scoured the
record and dismissed approximately seventy claims for failure to exhaust. The
magistrate judge then considered the merits of each exhausted claim, ultimately
recommending dismissal of each on the merits. After conducting a de novo
review of the record and considering Petitioner’s objections, the district court
adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommended disposition. The
district court denied Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing, holding there
was no factual conflict material to resolution of the case.
After an exhaustive review of Petitioner’s filings and the extensive record
on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district
court’s resolution of any of Petitioner’s claims, either on procedural grounds or
-2-
on the merits. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). We, likewise,
see no error in the district court’s rejection of Petitioner’s request for an
evidentiary hearing. For substantially the same reasons set forth by the
magistrate judge and district court in their admirably thorough rulings in this
case, we DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and
DISMISS the appeal. We GRANT Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. All other pending motions are DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-