FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

NOV 21 2001

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

	UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LEONARD DAVIS,

		Petitioner - Appellant,	

No. 01-2198	
	v.	(D. New Mexico)	
ERASMO BRAVO, Warden, Guadalupe County Correctional Facility; THE CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

		Respondents - Appellees.	(D.C. No. CIV-01-140-JP/RLP)		

	ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HENRY, BRISCOE, 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 Leonard Davis’ request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”).  Davis seeks a COA so that he can appeal the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his habeas corpus petition.  See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).  Because Davis has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” this court denies his request for a COA and dismisses this appeal.  Id. § 2253(c)(2).
	Davis is currently serving a life sentence in New Mexico state prison for first degree murder.  He raised the following two general claims in his habeas petition:  (1) he was denied due process by the respondent’s refusal to apply good-time credits to reduce the time he needed to serve in order to be eligible for parole from thirty years to fifteen years; and (2) his conviction is invalid under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) because the jury would have only convicted him of second degree murder if it had known that he would not get the benefit of good-time credits to reduce his parole eligibility date.  After the case was referred to a magistrate judge for initial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed.  The magistrate judge noted that Davis’ claim to good-time credits was foreclosed by this court’s decisions in Stephens v. Thomas, 19 F.3d 498, 501 (10th Cir. 1994) and Lasiter v. Thomas, 89 F.3d 699, 702 (10th Cir. 1996).  As to Apprendi, the magistrate simply noted that it had no application to this case.  Upon de novo review, the district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed Davis’ petition with prejudice.
	In his brief on appeal and request for a COA, Davis asserts that Stephens and Lasiter are wrong and that the statutes in New Mexico clearly provide for the application of good-time credits to reduce the parole eligibility date on a life sentence.  This court is bound by the decisions in Stephens and Lasiter absent a superseding decision of the Supreme Court or reconsideration by the en banc court.  See In re Smith, 10 F.3d 723, 24 (10th Cir. 1993).  Furthermore, the district court’s interpretation of those cases as foreclosing Davis’ claim is clearly not debatable among jurists, subject to a different resolution by this court, or deserving of further proceedings.  See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483‑84 (2000).  Accordingly, Davis has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” and is not entitled to a COA.  See id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).  Davis’ request for a COA is DENIED and this appeal is DISMISSED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge