| Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added |     (12432 bytes)     (7528 bytes)

To pursue this appeal, Hartfield must first obtain a certificate of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). To be entitled to a COA, Hartfield must make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Id. § 2253(c)(2). And 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). After carefully considering Hartfield's arguments and the entire record, we conclude Hartfield has failed to make a sufficient showing that he is entitled to COA on any of his claims. Therefore, we DISMISS this appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge

^*. The district court granted Hartfield's request to proceed in form pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). That status continues on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).

^2. On appeal, Hartfield specifically argues that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to 1) use Officer Naasz's police report to impeach the officer's testimony; 2) object to Nurses Schunn's and Rosenberg's testimony; 3) use police reports to rebut Detective Trollope's testimony; 4) object to the prosecutor's remarks made during closing argument; and 5) recall the victim as a rebuttal witness. In his § 2254 petition, Hartfield argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for 1) allowing Officer Naasz, Detective Trollope and Nurses Schunn and Rosenberg to give false testimony; 2) permitting trial court and prosecutorial misconduct; and 3) failing to call an eyewitness.

| Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added |     (12432 bytes)     (7528 bytes)