We agree with the district court that Mr. Ayala has not demonstrated that he has exhausted state court remedies regarding his claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); see also Demarest v. Price, 130 F.3d 922, 932 (10th Cir. 1997). Nor has he demonstrated futility. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(i) & (ii); see also Wallace v. Cody, 951 F.2d 1170, 1171 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, all pending requests for relief, including his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his request for court-appointed counsel are DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
*. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.