ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

After examining Petitioner’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The casé is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

The trial court directed Petitioner to show that he had satisfied the exhaustion requirements of O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999), or show cause why he had not. He did not respond to the trial court’s direction. The trial court dismissed Mr. Crawford’s claims without prejudice, denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and denied a certificate of appealability. This appeal followed and was accompanied by an application for a certificate of appealability and a motion to proceed inform a pauperis.

On appeal, Mr. Crawford continues to evade his responsibility to prove that he has exhausted state remedies or, in the alternative, show cause why he did not exhaust the state remedies available to him. The trial court’s determination was clearly correct. Therefore, we DENY Mr. Crawford’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, DENY his application for a certificate of appealability, and DISMISS the appeal.