FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
January 14, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 08-5125
(D.C. Nos. 07-CV-00551-CVE-FHM
v.
and 04-CR-00099-CVE-1)
(N.D. Okla.)
RODERICK WALKER, a/k/a “Rudd”,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before O’BRIEN, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
We must decide whether to grant a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) to
Roderick Walker, a federal prisoner, in order to permit his appeal from the district
court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A COA will not issue unless the applicant makes a
“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, Mr. Walker 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
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted). Our inquiry does not require a “full
consideration of the factual or legal bases adduced in support of [the applicant’s]
claims,” but, rather, “an overview of the claims . . . and a general assessment of
their merits.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
Mr. Walker is a pro se litigant, so we construe his pleadings and other
papers with solicitude. Van Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n.1 (10th
Cir. 2007). Before the district court, he raised some eighteen separate claims of
ineffective assistance on the part of both his trial and appellate lawyers. 1 In an
exhaustive and thoughtful thirty-six page opinion, the district court rejected each
of Mr. Walker’s constitutional claims. After reviewing the record, we conclude
no reasonable jurist could doubt the correctness of the district court’s disposition.
Accordingly, and for substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we
deny Mr. Walker’s application for a COA. The appeal is dismissed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
1
Mr. Walker also seeks to raise new claims before us, but we will not
entertain arguments not presented to the district court in the first instance.
Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935, 940 (10th Cir. 2004).
-2-