Kingsolver v. Ray

Tenth Circuit

Kingsolver v. Ray

271 F.3d 1212, 23 F. App'x 899, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 30036, 2001 WL 1504294

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedNovember 16, 2001

Docket01-1115

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 271 F.3d 1212 (Kingsolver v. Ray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kingsolver v. Ray, 271 F.3d 1212, 23 F. App'x 899, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 30036, 2001 WL 1504294 (10th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma *900 terially assist the detennination 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.

Daryl Kingsolver, a state prisoner convicted on two counts of sexual assault, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. To obtain a COA, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

Kingsolver alleges various constitutional violations arising from his convictions. This court has reviewed his request for a COA, his appellate brief, the district court’s order, and the entire record before us. Our review convinces us that Kingsolver’s § 2254 petition is not deserving of further proceedings, debatable among jurists of reason, or subject to different resolution on appeal. His request for a COA is DENIED. His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The motion to file an expanded brief is DENIED. This appeal is accordingly DISMISSED.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma *900 terially assist the detennination 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.

Daryl Kingsolver, a state prisoner convicted on two counts of sexual assault, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. To obtain a COA, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

Kingsolver alleges various constitutional violations arising from his convictions. This court has reviewed his request for a COA, his appellate brief, the district court’s order, and the entire record before us. Our review convinces us that Kingsolver’s § 2254 petition is not deserving of further proceedings, debatable among jurists of reason, or subject to different resolution on appeal. His request for a COA is DENIED. His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The motion to file an expanded brief is DENIED. This appeal is accordingly DISMISSED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 F.3d 1212, 23 F. App'x 899, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 30036, 2001 WL 1504294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kingsolver-v-ray-ca10-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack