FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

MAY 18 2000

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES SYLVESTER BEDFORD,

	Petitioner-Appellant,		
v.	No. 99-6301	
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA; ROBERT MACY; STEVE HARGETT,

	Respondents-Appellees.	(D.C. No. 98-CV-709-L)
(W.D. Okla.)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, HENRY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.**
                                                                      
	In 1996, an Oklahoma state court jury found Petitioner guilty of trafficking a controlled dangerous substance and possessing a controlled dangerous substance without a tax stamp.  The court sentenced Petitioner to fifteen years imprisonment and one year imprisonment, respectively.  The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Petitioner’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal.  Bedford v. Oklahoma, No. F-96-1424 (Okla. Crim. App. filed Oct. 27, 1997) (unpublished).  Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief in state district court.  The state court denied relief, and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed in May 1998.  Bedford v. Oklahoma, No. PC-98-254 (Okla. Crim. App. filed May 8, 1998) (unpublished).  In June 1998, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in federal district court.  The district court denied the petition as well as Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability.  Now before us is Petitioner’s renewed motion.  

	In his § 2254 petition, Petitioner argued: (1) he was denied due process because (a) he was held in county jail for a year before trial and (b) the state failed to present certain evidence to his attorney and investigator, (2) the Oklahoma district court lacked jurisdiction to hear his case, and (3) the police illegally searched and seized his bags from a Greyhound bus.  In a thorough report and recommendation, a magistrate judge recommended denial of the petition.  The magistrate judge concluded that Petitioner’s speedy trial claim was procedurally barred and lacked merit.  The magistrate judge further concluded that Petitioner’s access to evidence claim lacked merit.  Finally, the magistrate judge concluded that Petitioner’s second and third claims were procedurally barred and that Petitioner failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.  See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991).  The district court subsequently adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety and denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability.  See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).  
	A petitioner may appeal the denial of a § 2254 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. at § 2253(c)(2).
	We have thoroughly reviewed Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability, his brief, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court’s order adopting that report and recommendation, and the entire record before us.  We conclude that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right substantially for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s report 
and recommendation.  Accordingly, we deny his request for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
	CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
						Entered for the Court,

						Bobby R. Baldock
						Circuit Judge