FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 16, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
ALVIN PARKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 20-5107
v. (D.C. No. 4:20-CV-00125-GKF-JFJ)
(N.D. Okla.)
SCOTT CROW, Director, Oklahoma
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY
Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
Alvin Parker, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks to
appeal the district court’s denial of his “motion to vacate void judgment” and his
subsequent motion for reconsideration. The judgment Parker sought to vacate
was an order entered by the district court on May 18, 2020, denying, as time-
barred and successive, Parker’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenge to the execution of
his 199-year Oklahoma sentence for second-degree murder after a former felony
conviction. See Parker v. Crow, 822 F. App’x 716 (10th Cir. 2020) (denying
Parker a certificate of appealability (“COA”) because his § 2241 petition did not
identify a non-frivolous federal constitutional claim). The matter is before this
court on Parker’s request for a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing
no appeal may be taken from a “final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in
which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court”
unless the petitioner first obtains a COA); Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 869
(10th Cir. 2000) (holding § 2253(c)(1)(A) applies when a state habeas petitioner
is proceeding under § 2241). Because Parker has not made a “substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right,” this court denies his request for a COA
and dismisses this appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
A COA may issue if Parker “has made a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make this showing, he
must demonstrate “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.”
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quotation omitted). Parker has
failed to make the requisite showing. Indeed, as noted by the district court in its
May 18, 2020 order, this court has repeatedly rejected as meritless Parker’s
assertion that Oklahoma’s Truth In Sentencing Act granted him some type of
constitutionally protected vested right. Parker, 822 F. App’x at 719 (“We have
repeatedly explained that the definition of life imprisonment Parker cites never
-2-
became law, because the Oklahoma legislature repealed the Act before its
effective date. So we have held that the Act did not create any federal
constitutional claims for those seeking habeas relief.” (quotation and citations
omitted)); see id. (collecting cases from over the last twenty years so holding).
Thus, this court has already rejected on the merits the very argument underlying
Parker’s motions to vacate and for reconsideration. Thus, this court DENIES
Parker’s request for a COA and DISMISSES this appeal. Furthermore, because
Parker has failed to advance a “reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and
facts,” Watkins v. Leyba, 543 F.3d 624, 627 (10th Cir. 2008), this court also
DENIES his request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Parker is, therefore,
ordered to immediately remit any unpaid portion of the appellate filing fee in this
appeal. Parker’s motion to incorporate record on prior appeal is GRANTED.
His motion to expedite is DENIED AS MOOT.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-
Parker v. Crow
Combined Opinion