Filed: Oct. 16, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 16 2002 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk TOMI EDWARD JENNINGS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 02-8033 D.C. No. 01-CV-59-B VANCE EVERETT, Warden, (D. Wyoming) Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penitentiary, in his official capacity; WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before O’BRIEN and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges, and KANE , ** Senior District Judge. Af
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 16 2002 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk TOMI EDWARD JENNINGS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 02-8033 D.C. No. 01-CV-59-B VANCE EVERETT, Warden, (D. Wyoming) Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penitentiary, in his official capacity; WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before O’BRIEN and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges, and KANE , ** Senior District Judge. Aft..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 16 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TOMI EDWARD JENNINGS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 02-8033
D.C. No. 01-CV-59-B
VANCE EVERETT, Warden, (D. Wyoming)
Wyoming Department of Corrections
State Penitentiary, in his official
capacity; WYOMING ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before O’BRIEN and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges, and KANE , ** Senior District
Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
The Honorable John L. Kane, Senior District Judge, United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation.
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner-Appellant Tomi Edward Jennings appeals from the district
court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
In order to proceed on appeal, Jennings must obtain a certificate of appealability
(COA) from this court. See
id. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA will issue “only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
Id. § 2253(c)(2). Upon consideration, we deny COA and dismiss this appeal.
Jennings was convicted of escape from detention and received a six-to-nine
year sentence. His conviction was affirmed by the Wyoming Supreme Court. In
his appellate brief, which we construe as an application for a COA, he raises
seven issues: (1) denial of access to legal materials and the right to self-
representation; (2) lack of adequate notice of motion hearings; (3) improper
exclusion of African-Americans from his jury; (4) denial of speedy trial;
(5) denial of credit for time served; (6) improper alteration of trial transcripts; and
(7) double jeopardy.
The Wyoming Supreme Court has already considered and decided each of
these claims against Jennings. We owe a high level of deference to that court’s
decision, even at the COA stage. See Barrientes v. Johnson ,
221 F.3d 741, 772
(5th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he determination of whether a COA should issue must be
-2-
made by viewing the petitioner’s arguments through the lens of the deferential
scheme laid out in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).”), cert. dismissed ,
531 U.S. 1134 (2001).
We may not grant relief on claims adjudicated on the merits in state court unless
the adjudication:
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Having carefully reviewed the arguments Jennings raises, we conclude that
he has failed to meet the standard required to obtain a COA. Jennings’
application for a COA is therefore DENIED. His appeal is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
John L. Kane
Senior District Judge
-3-