FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
April 19, 2012
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
CRAIG S. ROBLEDO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 11-1556
v. (D.C. No. 1:11-CV-02130-LTB)
(D. Colo.)
S. JONES (Centennial CF); THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Craig Robledo, a state inmate appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) so that he may appeal from the district court’s denial of his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Finding that he has not made “a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), we deny Mr.
Robledo’s request for a COA and dismiss this appeal.
Mr. Robledo was sentenced to a three-year term of incarceration on March
30, 2009, and did not appeal his conviction or sentence. Robledo v. Jones, No.
11-cv-2130-BNB, 2011 WL 5910411, at *1 (D. Colo. Nov. 28, 2011). He filed
various motions for Colorado post-conviction relief between December 2009 and
July 2011, but did not appeal from the denial of any of those motions. Id. at *1-
*2. Instead, he filed a petition for federal habeas relief in August 2011. Id. at *2.
The district court was unable to determine, based upon the showing by
Respondents, whether the petition was time-barred. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Instead, it denied Mr. Robledo’s petition for failure to exhaust state remedies by
properly presenting his claims to state appellate courts and failure to demonstrate
cause for his procedural default. Robledo, 2011 WL 5910411 at *3-*4. Given
that the district court rejected his petition on procedural grounds, Mr. Robledo
must demonstrate “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether [(1)] the
petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and . . . [(2)] the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000).
The district court’s procedural ruling is not debatable. Mr. Robledo did not
present his state post-conviction claims to state appellate courts, as required by
§ 2254(b)(1)(A). See Selsor v. Workman, 644 F.3d 984, 1026 (10th Cir. 2011).
Furthermore, Mr. Robledo has not challenged the district court’s procedural
conclusion with any argument relating to cause and prejudice or a fundamental
miscarriage of justice. See Coronado v. Ward, 517 F.3d 1212, 1215-16 (10th Cir.
2008). We need not address whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
of a constitutional right.
We therefore DENY Mr. Robledo’s request for a COA, DENY IFP status,
-2-
and dismiss this appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-