FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

MAY 24 2000

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH RAY FULLER,

		Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

RON CHAMPION and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

		Respondents-Appellees.	

No.  99-6207
(D.C. No. CIV-98-312-L)
(W.D. Okla.)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

	After examining petitioner’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal.  See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).  The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
	Petitioner Kenneth Ray Fuller appeals from the district court’s denial of his habeas petition, filed pro se pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.  Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to commit unlawful delivery of a controlled dangerous substance and delivery of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine), and is serving two, 200-year, concurrent sentences.  We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253.  Under the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability before his appeal can proceed before this court.  See id. § 2253(c)(1)(A).  Petitioner must demonstrate “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” before a certificate of appealability can issue.  See id. § 2253(c)(2).  Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis; that request is granted.  
	In his habeas application, petitioner claimed 1) prosecutorial misconduct, 2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, 3) double jeopardy, 4) insufficient evidence of conspiracy, 5) excessive sentences, 6) trial court error in refusing to remove jurors for cause, and 7) trial court error in denying a motion for the jury to view the premises.  The magistrate judge recommended that these issues be rejected.  After objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied the petition.
	On appeal from the district court’s ruling, petitioner raises and argues the same seven issues.  Our review of the district court’s disposition in light of petitioner’s arguments and the applicable law convinces us that, for substantially the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, see R. Vol. I, doc. 18, petitioner has not demonstrated the denial of a constitutional right.  Accordingly, we DENY petitioner a certificate of appealability and DISMISS this appeal.  The mandate shall issue forthwith.  

				Entered for the Court

				Wade Brorby
				Circuit Judge