Mack Ray RUCKER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles RAY, Warden; The Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, Respondents-Appellees, 140 F. App'x 810

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING APPEAL O’BRIEN, Circuit Judge. 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. Mack Ray Rucker Jr., pro se, appeals the district court’s decision denying him habeas- relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, from his Oklahoma conviction for domestic violence, affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. See Rucker v. Oklahoma, No.

F-2001-1341 (OCCA Dec. 20, 2002) (unpublished). On appeal, Rucker argues that 1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; 2) his attorney provided ineffective representation; and 3) he was denied a fair trial due to cumulative error. To pursue this appeal, Rucker must first obtain a certificate of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). To be entitled to a COA, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

To make this showing, he must establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved [by the district court] in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (internal quotations omitted).

After carefully considering Rucker’s arguments and the entire record, we concur with the well-written and thoughtful report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, adopted by the district court in its order denying habeas relief. Rucker has failed to make a sufficient showing that he is entitled to a COA on any of his claims. Therefore, we DISMISS this appeal. In addition, Rucker’s pending request to proceed in forma pauperis filed in this Court is DENIED. He shall remit the full amount of the filing fee within twenty (20) days of this order. . We construe pro se pleadings liberally. Ledbetter v.

City of Topeka, Kan., 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir.2003).