F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
August 11, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FRED F. FRAN ZON E,
Petitioner - A ppellant,
No. 06-1122
v. (D.C. No. 05-CV-02633-ZLW )
(D . Colo.)
BILL OW ENS, Governor, et al.;
JOHN SU THERS, the Attorney
General of the State of Colorado,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE O F APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, M cKA Y, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Fred F. Franzone, a state inmate proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and subsequent denial
of a C OA. The district court concluded that M r. Franzone had failed to exhaust
his state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
M r. Franzone was convicted, following a jury trial, on August 30, 1998, of
(1) endangering public transportation, and (2) menacing. R. Doc. 3, attach. He
was sentenced to a five years on count 1 and two years on count 2, to run
concurrently with count 1, “plus any terms of parole authorized by CRS 18-1-
105(1)(A)(V).” He served four years in prison, was paroled, and then was
returned to prison after a parole violation. In his habeas petition, M r. Franzone
challenges the mandatory parole term on several grounds. On appeal, he raises
several more issues.
It appears that M r. Franzone had a state direct appeal, with certiorari denied
on December 20, 1999. He also sought relief under Colo. R. App. P. 21, and
those resulted in denials on July 6, 2003 and August 24, 2005. He also lists three
post-conviction proceedings under Colo. R. Crim. P. 35. R. Doc. 3 at 4.
To obtain a COA, M r. Franzone must make a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “W hen the district court
denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s
underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at
least, that jurists of reason w ould find it debatable whether the petition states a
valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”
Slack v. M cD aniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
After reviewing the record on appeal, we conclude that M r. Franzone has
failed to establish that the district court’s ruling concerning exhaustion of the
claims made in the petition is reasonably debatable. W e agree with the district
court that M r. Franzone’s efforts to utilize the original jurisdiction of the
Colorado Supreme Court does not constitute “fair presentation” of his claims for
-2-
purposes of exhaustion. See Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351 (1989).
Although M r. Franzone also argues that he filed three Rule 35 motions in 2000,
his petition does not indicate that this claim was included, but regardless, he
would not have complete exhaustion having failed to appeal. He provides no
rationale as to w hy exhaustion might not apply. Although w e construe pro se
petitions liberally, the pro se petitioner has the burden of providing the relevant
facts, particularly where the district court raised the exhaustion issue. See Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
W e DENY the COA, DENY leave to proceed IFP, and DISM ISS the
appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-