Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
April 6, 2006
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
No. 04-7122
(D.C. No. 01-CV-437-P)
(E.D. Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, EBEL, 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
-2-
-3-
evaluated under the two-part Strickland test which requires a showing of deficient
performance and prejudice resulting from the deficiency. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 692 (1984). The magistrate judge found that
counsels failure to perfect an appeal of the mandamus fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness and, citing the case of Romero v. Tansy, 46 F.3d 1024,
1031 (10th Cir. 1995), presumed that Watters was prejudiced by that failure.
Assuming that Mr. Watters had overcome the procedural bar, the magistrate
judge proceeded to evaluate the merits of his claims. She reviewed the state
district courts decision and decided that the denial of relief was based on a
reasonable determination of the facts and clearly established federal law.
Accordingly, she recommended that the action be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C.
2254(d)(1)-(2) (providing that a federal court will grant habeas relief only if
a state court adjudication on the merits was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States or was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court
proceeding). After consideration of Mr. Watters objections, the district court
adopted the magistrate judges recommendation and later denied Mr. Watters
application for a certificate of appealability.
-4-
-5-
This court is free to affirm a district court decision on any grounds for
which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, even grounds not
relied upon by the district court. United States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537, 542 n.6
(10th Cir. 1994) (quotations omitted). It should be noted, however, that we do
not disagree with the district courts merits determination that Mr. Watters failed
to demonstrate entitlement to habeas relief under the standard of 28 U.S.C.
2254(d)(1).
-6-
-7-