UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 3/19/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
CARLTON PETERS, )
)
Petitioner-Appellant, )
)
vs. ) No. 95-5257
) (D.C. No. 94-C-389-B)
R. MICHAEL CODY, ) (N.D. Okla.)
)
Respondent-Appellee. )
ORDER and JUDGMENT*
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**
Petitioner Carlton Peters, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We exercise jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.1
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered
submitted without oral argument.
1
We grant Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of probable cause and dispose of
his appeal on the merits. Grant v. Patterson, 391 U.S. 464, 466 (1967). We also grant
Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
On appeal, Petitioner argues the district court erred in dismissing his § 2254
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, Petitioner asserts: (1) the district court
erred in holding he was procedurally barred from raising an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim in the instant petition; (2) the district court erroneously refused to grant him
an evidentiary hearing; (3) he was denied a direct appeal in violation of the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments; and (4) his attorney deprived him of his constitutional right to
appeal his conviction.
We have reviewed Petitioners’ brief, the district court’s order, and the record
before us. Based upon our review of the record, we have determined there is no reversible
error and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s § 2254 petition.
AFFIRMED
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
2