|RODNEY R. GARNEAU,
(D.C. No. 02-CV-1374-M)
We grant Garneau's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). But to pursue this appeal, he must also obtain a certificate of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). And to be entitled to a COA, Garneau must make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Id. § 2253(c)(2). To make this showing, he must establish that "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved [by the district court] in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (quotations omitted). Garneau has failed to make that showing. For substantially the reasons relied upon by the district court, therefore, we DENY Garneau a COA and DISMISS this appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
*. Before the district court, Garneau raised a number of other claims, alleging the State denied him trial transcripts and a fair post-conviction proceeding; his appellate attorney was ineffective for failing to raise, on direct appeal, claims challenging the prosecutor's conduct in asking the victim leading questions and presenting perjured testimony, arguing Garneau's convictions were based on "improper influence/motive to fabricate," and hearsay, and asserting Garneau is actually innocent; Garneau's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate adequately the State's medical evidence, and its admissibility, and to present "any reasonable line of defense;" the prosecutor improperly asked the victim leading questions and allowed the State's witnesses to commit perjury; the evidence was insufficient to support the second rape conviction; Garneau was denied due process because "of improper influence/motive to fabricate," and hearsay; and he is actually innocent. Dist. Ct. R. Doc. 1 at 24, 26, 31. Garneau, however, does not reassert these claims now on appeal.