FILED
                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                  Tenth Circuit
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                 April 19, 2012
                                 TENTH CIRCUIT                Elisabeth A. Shumaker
                                                                  Clerk of Court

 CRAIG S. ROBLEDO,

       Petitioner - Appellant,
                                                       No. 11-1556
 v.                                           (D.C. No. 1:11-CV-02130-LTB)
                                                         (D. Colo.)
 S. JONES (Centennial CF); THE
 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
 STATE OF COLORADO,

       Respondents - Appellees.


                             ORDER
              DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY


Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.


      Craig Robledo, a state inmate appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) so that he may appeal from the district court’s denial of his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Finding that he has not made “a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), we deny Mr.

Robledo’s request for a COA and dismiss this appeal.

      Mr. Robledo was sentenced to a three-year term of incarceration on March

30, 2009, and did not appeal his conviction or sentence. Robledo v. Jones, No.

11-cv-2130-BNB, 

, at *1 (D. Colo. Nov. 28, 2011). He filed

various motions for Colorado post-conviction relief between December 2009 and
July 2011, but did not appeal from the denial of any of those motions. Id. at *1-

*2. Instead, he filed a petition for federal habeas relief in August 2011. Id. at *2.

      The district court was unable to determine, based upon the showing by

Respondents, whether the petition was time-barred. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Instead, it denied Mr. Robledo’s petition for failure to exhaust state remedies by

properly presenting his claims to state appellate courts and failure to demonstrate

cause for his procedural default. Robledo, 

 at *3-*4. Given

that the district court rejected his petition on procedural grounds, Mr. Robledo

must demonstrate “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether [(1)] the

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and . . . [(2)] the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000).

      The district court’s procedural ruling is not debatable. Mr. Robledo did not

present his state post-conviction claims to state appellate courts, as required by

§ 2254(b)(1)(A). See Selsor v. Workman, 

, 1026 (10th Cir. 2011).

Furthermore, Mr. Robledo has not challenged the district court’s procedural

conclusion with any argument relating to cause and prejudice or a fundamental

miscarriage of justice. See Coronado v. Ward, 

, 1215-16 (10th Cir.

2008). We need not address whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right.

      We therefore DENY Mr. Robledo’s request for a COA, DENY IFP status,

                                          -2-
and dismiss this appeal.

                           Entered for the Court


                           Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
                           Circuit Judge




                            -3-