LOUIS E. BRUCE
LOUIS E. BRUCE, Warden; THE STATE OF KANSAS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF KANSAS,
|Nos. 04-3456, 04-3457
(D.C. Nos. 00-3407-SAC,
To pursue these appeals, Woodberry must first obtain a certificate of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). To be entitled to a COA, Woodberry 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). For the claims the district court deemed procedurally defaulted, Woodberry must make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and show "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling," Slack, 529 U.S. at 478, 484 (quotation omitted). Woodberry has failed to make the requisite showing in these cases. Therefore, for substantially the reasons stated by the district court, we DENY Woodberry a COA and DISMISS both appeals.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
*. The district court granted Woodberry leave to proceed in forma pauperis (R., No. 04-3456, doc. 27 at 4; R., No. 04-3457, doc. 75 at 4.). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
2. Woodberry specifically argues that his trial counsel failed to obtain separate trials for each count; to seat a jury of Woodberry's peers; to object to government witnesses' identification testimony; to defend Woodberry properly, "due to his conduct after the verdict;" and to defend Woodberry to the best of the attorney's ability, because Woodberry was convicted without the Government's presenting sufficient evidence of his guilt. (R., No. 04-3456, doc. 1 at 6-6e; doc. 19 at 6-8.)
3. These appeals stem from two habeas petitions Woodberry filed in 2000. (R., No. 04-3456, doc. 1; R., No. 04-3457, doc. 1.) In those petitions, Woodberry, in addition to asserting his ineffective-assistance claims, argued his 1979 sentence had expired, his remaining sentences should be converted to sentences under the Kansas sentencing guidelines and, according to those guidelines, he was entitled to be released. (R., No. 04-3456, doc 1. at 6 to 6e; R., No. 04-3457, doc. 1 at 6-6f.) The district court consolidated these cases and denied Woodberry relief on his sentencing claims. (R., No. 04-3457, doc. 3.) This court affirmed that decision, but remanded Woodberry's ineffective-assistance claims for the district court to consider. See Woodberry v. Bruce, 13 Fed. Appx. 780, 782 (10th Cir. June 18, 2001) (unpublished) (also found at R., No. 04-3457, doc. 12.). These current appeals stem from those remand proceedings and concern only Woodberry's ineffective-assistance claims.