FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 19, 2014
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
SPENCER FOSTER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
No. 14-5099
v. (D.C. No. 4:11-CV-00758-JHP-PJC)
(N.D. Oklahoma)
EMMA WATTS, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER
Before KELLY, BALDOCK, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Mr. Spencer Foster was convicted in state court on charges involving
robbery with a firearm after a felony conviction. He obtained a ten-year
suspended sentence, but the state district court order revocation and sentenced Mr.
Foster to ten years in prison. After unsuccessfully appealing in state court, Mr.
Foster sought habeas relief in federal district court. This effort also proved
unsuccessful, and he seeks to appeal the denial of habeas relief. To do so,
however, he needs a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2012). We deny the request and dismiss the appeal.
Mr. Foster appeals denial of relief on two of the three claims asserted in
district court:
! failure to conduct a revocation hearing within 20 days of his plea, and
! excessiveness of the ten year sentence.
We can issue a certificate of appealability only if Mr. Foster has made “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). To satisfy this requirement, Mr. Foster must show that
“reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or the issues presented
were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880,
893 n.4 (1983)), superseded by statute, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, as recognized in Slack, 529
U.S. at 483-84) (internal quotation mark omitted). Under this test, Mr. Foster
“must show that the district court’s resolution of the constitutional claim was
either ‘debatable or wrong.’” Laurson v. Leyba, 507 F.3d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir.
2007) (quoting Slack, 529 U.S. at 484).
In the absence of waiver by the defendant, Oklahoma law requires the state
district court to conduct a revocation hearing within 20 days of a not guilty plea.
Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 991b(A). Mr. Foster waived the 20-day requirement for the
initial revocation petition. But authorities amended that petition, and Mr. Foster
denies that he waived the 20-day provision on the amended petition.
2
This dispute, however, is immaterial. In the habeas petition, Mr. Foster
claimed only that the state district court had lost jurisdiction because of the delay.
This claim is invalid because it involves a matter of state law and the state appeals
court resolved this issue adversely to Mr. Foster. Habeas relief is warranted only
by violations of federal law, not state law, and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals is the final arbiter on matters of Oklahoma law. See Dennis v. Poppel,
222 F.3d 1245, 1258 (10th Cir. 2000) (state-law issues not cognizable on federal
habeas review); United States v. DeGasso, 369 F.3d 1139, 1145 (10th Cir. 2004)
(state courts are the final arbiters of state law). In these circumstances, the federal
district court’s rejection of the claim is not “reasonably debatable.”
The same is true of Mr. Foster’s challenge to the ten-year sentence. Under
Oklahoma law, the minimum sentence involved ten years, and the state court
revoked the suspended sentence and set a prison term of ten years. Imposition of
the statutory minimum was not constitutionally excessive, as explained by the
federal district court. Thus, this claim is not reasonably debatable.
In these circumstances, we deny the request for a certificate of
appealability. In light of the absence of a certificate, we dismiss the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
3