Williamson v. Dinwiddie , 365 F. App'x 83 ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 18, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES E. WILLIAMSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 09-7067
v. (E.D. Oklahoma)
(D.C. No. 6:06-CV-00184-RAW-KEW)
WALTER DINWIDDIE,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
This matter is before the court on Charlie Williamson’s pro se requests for
a certificate of appealability (“COA”) and to proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis. Williamson seeks a COA so he can appeal the district court’s denial of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We grant
Williamson’s request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Because he has
not, however, “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,”
id. § 2253(c)(2), this court denies Williamson’s request for a COA and dismisses
this appeal.
A jury convicted Williamson in Oklahoma state court on one count of
Endeavoring to Manufacture Methamphetamine. Pursuant to the jury’s
recommendation, the state trial court sentenced Williamson to thirty-years’
imprisonment. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) affirmed
Williamson’s conviction and sentence in an unpublished summary opinion.
Williamson v. State, No. F-2004-172 (Okla. Crim. App. Apr. 20, 2005).
Williamson then filed the instant § 2254 petition in federal district court, raising
the same five grounds for relief he raised on direct appeal to the OCCA. The
matter was referred to a federal magistrate judge for initial proceedings pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). In a comprehensive Report and Recommendation,
the magistrate judge analyzed each ground for relief set out in Williamson’s
§ 2254 habeas petition and recommended that the district court deny habeas
relief. The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied
Williamson’s petition.
The granting of a COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to Williamson’s
appeal from the dismissal of his § 2255 petition. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336 (2003). To be entitled to a COA, Williamson must make “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To
make the requisite showing, he must demonstrate “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.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336 (quotations
omitted). In evaluating whether Williamson has satisfied his burden, this court
-2-
undertakes “a preliminary, though not definitive, consideration of the [legal]
framework” applicable to each of his claims. Id. at 338. Although Williamson
need not demonstrate his appeal will succeed to be entitled to a COA, he must
“prove something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere
good faith.” Id.Having undertaken a review of Williamson’s appellate filings, the district
court’s Order, the magistrate judge’s well-stated Report and Recommendation,
and the entire record before this court, we conclude Williamson is not entitled to
a COA. In so concluding, this court has nothing to add to the comprehensive
analysis set out in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, this court DENIES Williamson’s request for a COA and
DISMISSES this appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-