Branham v. Standifird , 485 F. App'x 338 ( 2012 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
November 28, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR HENRY BRANHAM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 11-6276
(D.C. No. 5:10-CV-00601-C)
v.
(W.D. Okla.)
JANE STANDIFIRD, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY *
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, McKAY and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Henry Branham, a prisoner in the custody of the State of Oklahoma
proceeding pro se, 1 seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Additionally, he has
renewed his motion, previously denied by the district court, to proceed on appeal
in forma pauperis. Having thoroughly reviewed the relevant law and the record,
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law
of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and
Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.
1
Because Mr. Branham is proceeding pro se, we construe his filings
liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Garza v.
Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1201 n. 2 (10th Cir. 2010).
we deny Mr. Branham’s request for a COA, deny Mr. Branham’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss this matter.
Mr. Branham was tried by a jury and convicted of one count of possession
of a controlled dangerous substance after prior felony convictions (Count I) and
one count of assault and battery of a police officer (Count II). He was sentenced
to twenty years for Count I and three years for Count II, with the terms to be
served concurrently. On direct appeal, the OCCA upheld his sentence and
conviction in a summary opinion.
Mr. Branham then filed his habeas petition in federal district court under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Among other things, Mr. Branham alleged that there was
insufficient evidence to support his conviction for possession of a controlled
dangerous substance, that the prosecutor committed misconduct, and that his
lawyer’s representation was constitutionally ineffective. The district court
referred his petition to a magistrate judge for consideration. The magistrate judge
recommended that the petition be denied. After reviewing Mr. Branham’s
objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and his motion seeking
leave to amend his petition, the district court adopted the recommendation and
denied Mr. Branham’s motion for leave to amend. Mr. Branham then sought a
COA from the district court and filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The
district court denied both Mr. Branham’s request for a COA and his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.
-2-
Mr. Branham now seeks a COA from our court regarding three claims.
Specifically, Mr. Branham seeks a COA on his claims that: (1) “the trial evidence
was insufficient to support conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous
substance,” (2) “the prejudicial effect of prosecutor misconduct constituted
fundamental error of a fair trial,” and (3) he “was [prejudiced] by ineffective
assistan[ce] of counsel.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 15.
“Before an appeal may be entertained, a prisoner who was denied habeas
relief in the district court must first seek and obtain a COA . . . .” Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We will
not issue a COA unless “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); accord Harris v.
Dinwiddie, 642 F.3d 902, 906 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)).
“To make such a showing, an applicant must demonstrate ‘that reasonable jurists
could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have
been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Harris, 642 F.3d at 906 (quoting
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
Pursuant to the framework set out by the Supreme Court in Miller-El, we
have carefully reviewed Mr. Branham’s combined opening brief and application
for COA as well as the record, including the magistrate judge’s thorough report
and recommendation and the district court’s orders. Based upon this review, we
-3-
conclude that Mr. Branham is not entitled to a COA on any of his claims because
he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Reasonable jurists could not debate whether Mr. Branham’s § 2254 motion should
have been resolved in a different manner, and the issues that he seeks to raise on
appeal are not adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
As for Mr. Branham’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the district
court found that Mr. Branham’s “appeal is not taken in good faith . . . [because]
the issues [he] seeks to raise on appeal lack merit,” and so denied his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. Branham v. Standifird, Dist. Ct. No. 5:10-cv-00601-
C, Doc. 58, at 2 (Order, filed Nov. 21, 2011). Mr. Branham renewed this motion
in his filings to our court. We too deny his motion because we agree with the
district court that Mr. Branham has not demonstrated “the existence of a reasoned,
nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on
appeal.” Watkins v. Leyba, 543 F.3d 624, 627 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting McIntosh
v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997)) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
-4-
Accordingly, we deny Mr. Branham’s request for a COA, deny his motion
to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss this matter.
Entered for the Court
JEROME A. HOLMES
Circuit Judge
-5-