F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 20 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CHARLES TIGER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 04-6330
v. (D.C. No. 04-CV-631-F)
(W.D. Okla.)
JOHN WHETSEL,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, O’BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Charles Tiger, a state defendant who was being held pending trial, seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders dismissing both his habeas petition, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, alleging violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and his
motions for reduction of state bond during the pendency of his habeas
proceedings. Upon recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district court
denied the petition because the remedy sought by Mr. Tiger in his petition,
dismissal of state charges, was unavailable, and denied the motion for a reduction
of bond because the federal court lacked the power to review the state court’s
bond determination. R. Docs. 15 & 19. Because we determine that Mr. Tiger has
not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000), we deny a COA
and dismiss the appeal.
After consideration of the materials submitted by Mr. Tiger, it is apparent
that the conclusions of the district court, upon adoption of the reports and
recommendations of the magistrate judge, are not reasonably debatable. See
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Mr. Tiger attempts to raise
additional issues in his brief before this court, but such issues are deemed waived
in that he did not raise them before the district court. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428
U.S. 106, 120 (1976).
We DENY Mr. Tiger’s application for a COA, his motion for IFP status,
and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-2-