FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 18, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
ROLAND RUDD, also known as
Farrakhan Israel Aziz,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 08-3268
(D.C. No. 5:07-CV-03097-JTM)
ROGER WERHOLTZ, Secretary of (D. Kan.)
Corrections, State of Kansas;
STEPHEN N. SIX, Attorney General
of the State of Kansas,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before McCONNELL, McKAY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. **
Roland Rudd, a Kansas state prisoner, was convicted of sexual assault and
sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 272 months. Following the denial of his
direct appeals and collateral proceedings in state court, he filed a challenge to his
confinement in federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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.
**
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.
raised some eighteen separate claims. In a thorough opinion, the district court
discussed each claim and denied the petition. Because the district court did not
rule on his subsequent request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”), it was
deemed denied. See 10th Cir. R. 22.1(C).
Mr. Rudd now seeks a COA from this court to permit an appeal of the
district court’s denial of his § 2254 petition. In order to obtain a COA, a
petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), such that “reasonable jurists would find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003) (quotation omitted).
Mindful of the solicitous construction to be afforded Mr. Rudd’s pro se
filings, Van Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n.1 (10th Cir. 2007), we
nonetheless conclude that no reasonable jurist could doubt the correctness of the
district court’s disposition. As such, and for substantially the same reasons given
by the district court, we deny Mr. Rudd’s application for a COA and we dismiss
this appeal.
Entered for the Court
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-2-