ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

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.

Marvin Reddish, the pro se petitioner in this case, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) so he can appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that no appeal may be taken from the denial of a § 2254 petition unless the petitioner first obtains a COA). Reddish is not entitled to a COA unless he can make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). Reddish can make this showing by demonstrating that the issues raised are debatable among jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions presented deserve further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

This court has read Reddish’s request for a COA and accompanying brief and has conducted a de novo review of the district court’s order and the entire record on appeal. That de novo review clearly demonstrates the district court’s dismissal of Reddish’s § 2254 petition is not deserving of further proceedings or subject to a different resolution on appeal. Accordingly, this court denies Reddish’s request for a COA and dismisses this appeal.