Arellano v. Medina ( 2013 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 12, 2013
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM ARELLANO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
No. 13-1264
ANGEL MEDINA, Warden, and THE
(D.C. No. 1:12-CV-01693-WYD)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
(D. Colo.)
STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before HARTZ, O’BRIEN, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
After his state court convictions for theft and burglary — and for qualifying
as a “habitual criminal” under the terms of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-803(4)(b)
after having accumulated now so many felony convictions — William Arellano
unsuccessfully pursued a direct appeal and collateral attack on his conviction and
sentence in state court. None of that proved fruitful so he turned eventually to
federal court, seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The federal district court
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
assigned to his case, however, also denied relief. The court found that most of
Mr. Arellano’s claims were procedurally defaulted and that the remaining claims
failed on the merits. Now before us, Mr. Arellano seeks a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) to undo this decision.
That we cannot provide. We may award a COA only if the petitioner
makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). To do that much, a petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable
jurists could debate whether his petition should have been resolved differently.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Even viewing his pleadings before
us generously, however, Mr. Arellano does not meaningfully address, much less
give us cause to debate, the district court’s procedural default or merits analyses.
The district court issued three separate orders in this case, spanning
approximately 40 pages. After our independent review, we discern no error in its
analysis, neither do we see what we might add usefully to what it has said.
Accordingly, Mr. Arellano’s request for a COA is denied and this matter is
dismissed. His request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-2-