ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unani *320 mously 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.

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 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, 121 S.Ct. 902, 148 L.Ed.2d 948 (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.