FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

MAY 11 2001

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

		UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MERRILL BURROUS CHAMBERLAIN, 		
	Petitioner - Appellant,	No. 00-2465	
v.	(D.C. No. CIV-95-167-LH)	
JOHN SHANKS, Warden; and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO,	(D. New Mexico)	
	Respondents - Appellees.		

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

	After examining the briefs 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 fatally shot a police officer and was subsequently tried for murder, among other things, in New Mexico state court.  The first trial resulted in a hung jury.  The second trial, which involved new defense counsel and a different defense strategy, resulted in a conviction.  That conviction was affirmed on appeal by the New Mexico Supreme Court.  See State v. Chamberlain, 819 P.2d 673 (N.M. 1991).  Petitioner subsequently sought federal court review of his state court conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.  In the habeas petition, he alleged that numerous constitutional violations occurred during his second trial, including improper jury instructions, ineffective assistance of counsel, and various denials of due process.  The matter was referred to a magistrate judge who recommended rejecting all of Petitioner’s claims on the merits.  After de novo review, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation.  Petitioner then requested a certificate of appealability, as he must under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, for leave to appeal the district court’s decision.  That request was denied.  Petitioner, now proceeding pro se, has renewed his pursuit of a certificate of appealability with this court.
	A court should grant a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”  28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).  Petitioner could do so by demonstrating that his claims warrant further proceedings, “subject to a different resolution on appeal,” or are debatable among reasonable jurists.  See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 869 (10th Cir. 2000).  After carefully reviewing Petitioner’s “Application for Certificate of Appealability” in conjunction with the magistrate judge’s thorough, considered opinion and State v. Chamberlain, 819 P.2d 673 (rejecting some of the same arguments currently asserted in Petitioner’s habeas petition), we conclude that Petitioner has failed to make the necessary showing.  We can do no better than the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition filed on August 1, 2000, in explaining why.  The request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED and this appeal is DISMISSED.  
							Entered for the Court

							Monroe G. McKay
							Circuit Judge