FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 24, 2014
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
SAMMY LEE SANDERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 13-5150
v. (D.C. No. 4:10-CV-00695-TCK-PJC)
(N.D. Okla.)
JIM FARRIS, Warden, Lexington
Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant Sammy Lee Sanders, a state prisoner appearing pro se,
seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in order to appeal the district court’s
denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.
We may issue a COA only if Mr. Sanders makes “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. at § 2253(c)(2). He may accomplish this
by showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have
been resolved differently or that the issues deserve further proceedings. Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Where the district court dismisses a
petition on procedural grounds and does not reach the merits of the underlying
constitutional claims, the inmate must make a threshold showing that the district
court’s procedural ruling is reasonably debatable. Id.
Mr. Sanders asserts the same seven claims of error he raised before the
district court: (1) the state trial court erred in imposing conditions on the
admissibility of certain evidence; (2) improper arguments by the prosecutor
deprived Mr. Sanders of a fair trial; (3) Mr. Sanders was denied effective
assistance of trial counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments;
(4) Mr. Sanders’s appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue of
the prosecutor using known perjured testimony; (5) appellate counsel was
ineffective for failing to raise the issue of the prosecutor shifting the burden of
proof; (6) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Brady violation
because the prosecutor failed to provide statements of witnesses during discovery;
and (7) cumulation of errors resulted in an unfair trial. Aplt. Br. 3; Sanders v.
Farris, No. 10-CV-695-TCK-PJC, 2013 WL 6148364, at *4 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 22,
2013).
The district court’s resolution of claims (1) (state evidentiary issues), (2)
(prosecutorial misconduct), (3) (ineffective trial counsel), and (7) (cumulative
error), all of which were adjudicated by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
(“OCCA”), is not reasonably debatable. See Sanders, 2013 WL 6148364, at *5-
15. Claims (4), (5), and (6) were dismissed on procedural grounds, id. at *15-17,
-2-
and the district court’s ruling that the OCCA’s procedural bar was an independent
and adequate state ground precluding habeas review is not reasonably debatable.
See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). The district court carefully
considered the claims, and Mr. Sanders has failed to make a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack, 529 U.S. at
484.
We DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-