F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 6 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
LUIS SANCHEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 97-2116
(D.C. No. CIV-96-37-MV)
JOE SPRUNK, Warden; ATTORNEY (D. N.M.)
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW
MEXICO,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and BRISCOE, 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.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Petitioner Luis Sanchez petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court dismissed the petition
and denied Mr. Sanchez a certificate of appealability. See id. § 2253(c). Since
Mr. Sanchez filed his petition in the district court prior to April 24, 1996, we
construe his application for a certificate of appealability in this court as an
application for a certificate of probable cause. See United States v. Kunzman,
125 F.3d 1363, 1364 n.2 (10th Cir. 1997).
Mr. Sanchez makes the following arguments: (1) his counsel rendered
ineffective assistance by failing to secure the services of an interpreter until the
state’s only witness finished testifying on direct examination; (2) his counsel was
ineffective by failing to present a defense, by failing to call witnesses and to
present evidence; (3) he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective
assistance of counsel claims; (4) the cumulative effect of counsel’s errors denied
him a fair trial; (5) the state trial court denied him his due process rights and right
to confront witnesses by admitting the officer’s hearsay statement concerning an
alleged arrangement for Mr. Sanchez to make a second cocaine sale; and (6) the
state trial court denied him his due process and confrontation rights by admitting
the officer’s hearsay testimony concerning the chain of custody of the cocaine
allegedly purchased from Mr. Sanchez on two different occasions.
-2-
For substantially the reasons stated in the well-reasoned order by the
magistrate judge dated February 11, 1997, adopted by the district court in its
order of March 11, 1997, we deny a certificate of probable cause. Accordingly,
this appeal is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Circuit Judge
-3-