F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 14 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DARREL JOSEPH GOURLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 99-3158
v. (D.C. No. 95-CV-3481-DES)
DAVID MCKUNE, Warden, and (D. Kan.)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
KANSAS,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner-Appellant Darrel Joseph Gourley, appearing pro se, appeals the
order of the district court denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
U.S.C. § 2254. As a preliminary matter, Appellees raise an issue of timeliness in
filing the notice of appeal. We conclude that Mr. Gourley’s appeal is timely and
that we have jurisdiction pursuant to Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49
(1992).
Mr. Gourley is currently serving sentences of life for first degree murder,
fifteen years to life for aggravated burglary, and nine years to life for felony theft
as a result of 1977 convictions in state court. In his habeas petition before the
district court, Mr. Gourley raised seven different claims of constitutional
violation that occurred in the course of his trial in the state court system. After
considering and rejecting each claim, the district court denied Mr. Gourley’s
petition. This appeal followed, raising essentially the same constitutional claims.
After review, we conclude that the district court’s decision is correct on the
law and is fully supported by the record.
We DENY the certificate of appealability and AFFIRM for the reasons set
forth in the district court’s Memorandum and Order.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-2-