F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 12 2001
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
NATHAN EARL SANDERS,
Petitioner-Appellant, No. 00-2431
v. (D. New Mexico)
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE (D.C. No. CIV-99-1185-JP/KPM)
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, JOE R.
WILLIAMS, Warden, Lea County
Correctional Facility,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY , BRISCOE , and 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)(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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Nathan Earl Sanders was convicted after a jury trial in a New Mexico state
court of possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute. Relying on Mr.
Sanders’s four prior felony convictions, the trial court sentenced him to
seventeen years’ incarceration followed by two years’ parole.
After unsuccessfully challenging his conviction on direct appeal and in two
state habeas corpus proceedings, Mr. Sanders filed the instant pro se federal
habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). He asserted four claims
that he had previously raised in the New Mexico courts: (1) that the evidence
was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel because his lawyer failed to challenge certain incriminating
statements that he made when he was arrested; (3) that he received ineffective
counsel because his lawyer failed to request an instruction on simple possession;
and (4) that the prosecution violated 18 U.S.C. § 201 by offering a reduced
sentence to a witness in exchange for her testimony.
Mr. Sanders also raised several claims that he had not previously asserted.
He argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer
failed to file a motion for severance, failed to attack an informant’s credibility,
failed to seek reversal of the conviction on the grounds that the prosecution had
offered a witness a lenient sentence, and failed to zealously represent him. Mr.
-2-
Sanders also argued that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the
jury pool was not a fair cross-section of the community.
The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge. Noting that the
respondents had conceded that Mr. Sanders had exhausted all of his claims, see
Rec. vol. I, doc. 14, at 5 (quoting Rec. doc. 12,¶¶ 4,6), the magistrate judge
addressed the merits of each. Because Sanders filed his federal habeas petition
on October 12, 1999, the magistrate judge applied the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214
(1996) (effective April 24, 1996). In her Proposed Findings and Recommended
Disposition, she found that none of Mr. Sanders’s claims afforded a basis for
habeas relief. The district court adopted her findings and dismissed Mr.
Sanders’s petition with prejudice.
We have reviewed the record, magistrate judge’s findings, and Mr.
Sanders’s appellate brief. We note that he raises the same arguments that he
raised in the district court and that he has not offered any authority that supports
his contention that the district court erred in dismissing his petition. We agree
with the thorough and well-reasoned analysis set forth by the magistrate judge.
-3-
Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Sanders’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and DISMISS this appeal.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
United States Circuit Judge
-4-