U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1999

Reynolds v. Williams

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Decided May 21, 1999

Opinion

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

MAY 21 1999

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk GARY REYNOLDS,

Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 98-2181

(D.C. No. CIV 94-1157 M/LFG) JOE WILLIAMS, Warden; (D. N.M.) ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Respondents-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , BARRETT , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination 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. *

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.

Petitioner Gary Reynolds seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and dismissing the action with prejudice. The district court also denied petitioner a certificate of appealability. 1

After review of petitioner’s brief and the record on appeal, we conclude that petitioner has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal right.” Barefoot v. Estelle , 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983) (further quotation omitted). Therefore, we deny petitioner’s request for a certificate of probable cause, and dismiss the appeal.

Entered for the Court James E. Barrett Senior Circuit Judge

1 Although the magistrate judge’s report correctly noted that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) did not apply to petitioner’s case because it was filed before the effective date of that act, the district court nonetheless used the “certificate of appealability” language arising out of AEDPA. See Rec. Vol. I, tab 53; 28 U.S.C. §2253(c). We construe petitioner’s notice of appeal as a request for a certificate of probable cause under pre-AEDPA standards. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) (prior to amendment by AEDPA).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.