F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 30 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
PEDRO BARRON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 97-2344
(D.C. No. CIV-97-636-JC)
TIM LEMASTER, Warden, and (D. N.M.)
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BRORBY, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered
submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner Pedro Barron, appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis,
requests a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his petition for
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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.
habeas corpus. Because Barron has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we deny his request for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Barron was arraigned in New Mexico state court in two separate criminal cases,
each charging him with two counts of trafficking cocaine. He subsequently pleaded
guilty to the four counts and was sentenced to a total of eighteen years’ imprisonment.
He did not file a direct appeal, but filed a habeas petition in state district court, which was
denied, and then filed a habeas petition in the state supreme court, which was denied.
Barron filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in federal
district court, claiming: (1) the state district court violated his due process rights by
denying his habeas petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing; (2) he was denied
effective assistance of counsel during his state criminal proceedings; and (3) he was
placed in double jeopardy because he was subjected to imprisonment and civil forfeiture
of property for the same criminal offenses. The district court adopted the magistrate
court’s recommendation that the petition be denied.
We have conducted a de novo review of Barron’s application for a certificate of
appealability, his brief on appeal, the magistrate’s report and recommendation, and the
entire record on appeal. We conclude Barron has failed to demonstrate the district court’s
resolution of his habeas petition is debatable or is reasonably suspect to a different
outcome on appeal to this court. This same review leads us to conclude none of the issues
-2-
raised are deserving of further proceedings.
Barron’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED, and the appeal is
DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-3-
Barron v. Lemaster
Combined Opinion