F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 24 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
KENNETH RAY FULLER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 99-6207
(D.C. No. CIV-98-312-L)
RON CHAMPION and ATTORNEY (W.D. Okla.)
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY , ANDERSON , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining petitioner’s brief 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.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 Kenneth Ray Fuller appeals from the district court ’s denial of
his habeas petition, filed pro se pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was
convicted of conspiracy to commit unlawful delivery of a controlled dangerous
substance and delivery of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine), and is
serving two, 200-year, concurrent sentences. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Under the provisions of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, petitioner must obtain a certificate
of appealability before his appeal can proceed before this court. See
id. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Petitioner must demonstrate “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right” before a certificate of appealability can issue.
See id. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis; that request is granted.
In his habeas application, petitioner claimed 1) prosecutorial misconduct,
2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, 3) double jeopardy, 4) insufficient
evidence of conspiracy, 5) excessive sentences, 6) trial court error in refusing to
remove jurors for cause, and 7) trial court error in denying a motion for the jury
to view the premises. The magistrate judge recommended that these issues be
rejected. After objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and denied the petition.
-2-
On appeal from the district court ’s ruling, petitioner raises and argues the
same seven issues. Our review of the district court’s disposition in light of
petitioner’s arguments and the applicable law convinces us that, for substantially
the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge ’s findings and recommendation, see
R. Vol. I, doc. 18, petitioner has not demonstrated the denial of a constitutional
right. Accordingly, we DENY petitioner a certificate of appealability and
DISMISS this appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Circuit Judge
-3-