Filed: Patrick Fisher
Filed: Patrick Fisher
JUN 2 2000
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CLIFFORD STEWART,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL ROGERSON, Acting Chief
Probation Officer, Fourth Judicial
District, State of Colorado; CHUCK
TULISZEWSKI, Probation Officer;
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF COLORADO,
No. 99-1121
(D.C. No. 96-N-2786)
(D. Colo.)
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
of this appeal.
petition, filed pro se pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 2253. Under the provisions of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, appellant must obtain a certificate
of appealability before his appeal can proceed before this court.
See
Appellant was convicted of felony theft after trial to a jury. He was placed
on probation and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of two million dollars.
He presented two issues to the
Constitution, and (2) that the verdicts returned by the jury were inconsistent and
therefore constitutionally invalid.
same issues on appeal except that he has expanded the first issue into two
arguments, one based on ex post facto and another on due process. Without
determining whether the due process argument was presented to the
-2-
district court ,
we have considered the two arguments together, as it appears they are essentially
the same issue. To the extent that appellant raises other arguments not presented
or addressed by the district court , however, we do not consider those.
See Walker
v. Mather (in re Walker) , 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992).
Our review of the district courts disposition in light of appellants
arguments and the applicable law convinces us that, for substantially the reasons
set forth in the magistrate judge s findings and recommendation,
see R. Vol. I,
doc. 23, appellant has not demonstrated the denial of a constitutional right.
Accordingly, we DENY appellant a certificate of appealability and DISMISS this
appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-