F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 17 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
IVAN COMMODORE STAMPS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 02-1143
D.C. No. 02-Z-233
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF (D. Colorado)
THE STATE OF COLORADO;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Petitioner Ivan Stamps is before this court seeking a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) so he can appeal the district court’s dismissal of the
habeas petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that no appeal may be taken from the denial of a § 2254
petition unless the petitioner first obtains a COA). Stamps is not entitled to a
COA unless he makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). Stamps also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal.
In his § 2254 petition, Stamps challenged the imposition of a mandatory
parole period as part of the sentence he received after his felony conviction.
Stamps claimed the mandatory parole provision violates the separation of powers
doctrine, constitutes double jeopardy, and denies him due process of law. The
district court rejected the issues raised by Stamps on their merits and denied the §
2254 petition. Stamps raises the same issues in his application for a COA and
appellate brief.
This court has reviewed Stamps’ application for a COA, his appellate brief,
and the entire record on appeal. That de novo review clearly demonstrates the
district court’s dismissal of Stamps’ § 2254 petition is not deserving of further
proceedings or subject to a different resolution on appeal. See Slack v.
McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). Therefore, he has not demonstrated the
-2-
denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, this court denies Stamps’ request
for a COA for substantially those reasons set forth in the district court’s order
dated March 11, 2002, and dismisses this appeal. Stamps’ application to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal is denied . All remaining pending motions are
denied .
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-