FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

APR 7 1999

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JIMMY L. SMITH,

	Petitioner-Appellant,		
v.	Nos. 98-7147
& 98-7170	
GARY GIBSON; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

	Respondents-Appellees.	(D.C. No. 96-CV-365-S)
(E.D. Okla.)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.**
                                                                      
	A jury convicted Petitioner Jimmy L. Smith in Oklahoma state court of robbery with a firearm and assault with a dangerous weapon.  Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction and thereafter twice unsuccessfully sought state post-conviction relief. Petitioner next filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the federal district court raising three claims: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the prosecutor submitted unduly prejudicial evidence to the jury; and (3) the state trial court improperly denied his motion for trial transcripts at public expense for the purpose of preparing his second application for state post-conviction relief.  The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be denied and the district court adopted that recommendation.  The district court subsequently denied Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability.  See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).  His renewed application is before us.
	A defendant may appeal the denial of a habeas corpus petition only if a “circuit justice or judge” issues a certificate of appealability.  28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).  A certificate of appealability “may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”  Id. 2253(c)(2); United States v. Simmonds, 111 F.3d 737, 746 (10th Cir. 1997).
	We have thoroughly reviewed Defendant’s application for a certificate of appealability, his brief, the district court’s orders, and the entire record before us.  We conclude that Petitioner’s claims are meritless substantially for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation and the district judge’s order adopting the same.  Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we deny his request for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals.
	APPLICATION DENIED; APPEALS DISMISSED.
							Entered for the Court,

							Bobby R. Baldock
							Circuit Judge