UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 5/6/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
HARRON JAMES EDWARDS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 95-5276
v. (N. Dist. of Oklahoma)
(D.C. No. 95-C-927-K)
RITA ANDREWS,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
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 is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner Herron James Edwards, appearing pro se, filed a habeas petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the district court. The district court denied the petition
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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.
and denied Edwards a certificate of probable cause for leave to proceed on appeal. This
matter is before the court on Edwards’ application for a certificate of probable cause.
A petitioner convicted of a state crime may appeal a federal district court’s denial
of habeas corpus relief only if the district court or the court of appeals grants a certificate
of probable cause. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). In Barefoot v. Estelle, 463
U.S. 880, 892-93 (1983), the Supreme Court declared that the “primary means of
separating meritorious from frivolous [habeas corpus] appeals should be the decision to
grant or withhold a certificate of probable cause.” To receive a certificate of probable
cause, a petitioner must “make a ‘substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal right.’”
Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 431 (1991) (per curiam) (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at
893). A petitioner can satisfy this standard by demonstrating that the issues raised are
debatable among jurists, that a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the
questions presented deserve further proceedings. Gallagher v. Hannigan, 24 F.3d 68, 68
(10th Cir. 1994) (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 & n.4).
We have reviewed Edwards’ application for a certificate of probable cause and
appellate brief, the district judge’s recommended disposition and order denying a
certificate of probable cause, and the entire record before us. We conclude that Edwards
has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of an important federal right
necessary for the issuance of a certificate of probable cause under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. See
2
Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893. Accordingly, we DENY Edwards’ application for a certificate
of probable cause and DISMISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
3