FILED
                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS         Tenth Circuit

                             FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          September 13, 2017
                         _________________________________
                                                                            Elisabeth A. Shumaker
                                                                                Clerk of Court
ANTHONY LEROY DAVIS,

      Petitioner - Appellant,
                                                               No. 17-3163
v.                                                    (D.C. No. 5:17-CV-03087-SAC)
                                                                 (D. Kan.)
DAN SCHNURR,

      Respondent - Appellee.
                      _________________________________

            ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
                    _________________________________

Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       On May 19, 2017, Applicant Anthony Davis filed for relief in the United States

District Court for the District of Kansas on a form for applications under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. He asserted a violation of his “right to procedural due process” because he has

purportedly “satisfied” his “computed sentences” and so has a “right to be released.” R.,

Vol. 1 at 9. As this is a challenge to the calculation of his sentence, the district court con-

strued the application as one under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Montez v. McKinna, 

, 865 (10th Cir. 2000). The court then dismissed it without prejudice because Appli-

cant had not shown that he had exhausted state-court remedies. Applicant filed a notice

of appeal. To appeal, he must obtain a certificate of appealability (COA). See 

The district court refused to issue a COA, so Applicant has applied to this court for one.
       “When a district court dismisses a petition on procedural grounds without reaching

the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA cannot issue unless the petitioner

shows both (1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and (2) that jurists of reason would find

it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Frost v.

Pryor, 

, 1230 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even

assuming that Applicant could meet this test’s first prong, he has not shown that reasona-

ble jurists could debate the second.

       Before seeking federal habeas relief, a state prisoner proceeding under § 2241

must exhaust available state-court remedies. See Magar v. Parker, 

, 818

(10th Cir. 2007). This is to “give the state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve

federal constitutional claims before those claims are presented to the federal courts.”

O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 

, 845 (1999). “[A] state prisoner must give state

courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete

round of the State’s established appellate review process.” 

(in-

ternal quotation marks omitted). A complete round includes seeking discretionary review

in the State’s highest court. See 

Applicant’s burden to show exhaustion of state-court remedies. See Hernan-

dez v. Starbuck, 

, 1092 (10th Cir. 1995). He has not done so. Although his

brief to this court mentions a pending matter in Kansas state court, and apparently he re-

cently received a decision from the Kansas Court of Appeals, he has made no showing

that he has pursued the claim before us through Kansas courts to the state supreme court.


                                              2
All reasonable jurists would agree that Applicant has not exhausted his state-court reme-

dies.

        We DENY Applicant’s COA request and dismiss this appeal.

                                             Entered for the Court


                                             Harris L Hartz
                                             Circuit Judge




                                            3