F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 8 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DAN HENRY TIJERINA,
Petitioner-Appellant, No. 01-4221
v. (D.C. No. 01-CV-556-S)
UTAH STATE BOARD OF (D. Utah)
PARDONS; PAUL SHEFFIELD;
GERALD COOK, Warden,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, 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.
State prisoner Dan Henry Tijerina, proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal the
dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. In his habeas petition,
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Mr. Tijerina claimed that the Utah State Parole Board breached his plea
agreement and that it failed to provide due process at parole hearings that took
place in either November 1987 or November 1988. The district court dismissed
the petition as untimely under AEDPA. Petitioner now seeks a certificate of
appealability.
In order for this court to grant a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must
make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). To do so, Petitioner must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists could
debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been
resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000) (quotations omitted).
After a careful review of the petition, the district court’s opinion, and the
relevant record, we conclude that for substantially the same reasons as those
given by the district court Petitioner does not present a debatable question for
reasonable jurists.
Thus, we DENY Petitioner a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the
case.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-2-