FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

JAN 8 2001

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES ANTHONY GOLDEN,

	Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

STEPHEN W. KAISER,

	Respondent-Appellee.
	No. 00-6315
(W. District of Oklahoma)
(D.C. No. 00-CV-1246-C)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

	After examining the briefs and 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.
	This case is before the court on Charles Anthony Golden’s pro se request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”).  Golden seeks a COA so that he can appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.  In his § 2241 petition, Golden challenged as unconstitutional the actions of Oklahoma prison officials in resetting his parole hearing date based on the newly-enacted Truth in Sentencing Act.  The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for initial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).  The magistrate judge issued a comprehensive report and recommendation, concluding as follows: (1) each of Golden’s three claims were time barred under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); (2) Golden had not identified any circumstances that would entitle him to equitable tolling and no such circumstances were apparent; and (3) Golden’s second and third claims, which claims related to alleged deficiencies in Oklahoma’s post-conviction procedures, failed to present a viable habeas claim, see Sellers v. Ward, 135 F.3d 1333, 1336 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1024 (1998).  Upon de novo review, the district court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed Golden’s petition with prejudice.
	 Golden is entitled to a COA only upon making a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”  28 U.S.C. § 2253(b)(2).  He can make this showing by demonstrating that the issues raised are debatable among jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions presented deserve further proceedings.  See Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1603-04 (2000).  This court has reviewed Golden’s request for a COA and accompanying brief and has conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court’s order, and the entire record on appeal.  That close review reveals that the district court’s resolution of Golden’s petition is not debatable or deserving of further proceedings.  Accordingly, this court DENIES Golden’s request for a COA for substantially those reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation dated August 15, 2000, and the district court’s order dated August 31, 2000.  Golden’s appeal is, therefore, DISMISSED.  See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
							ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

							Michael R. Murphy
							Circuit Judge