Edward Berry, Petitioner-appellant, v. Jack Cowley; Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma,respondents-appellees, 70 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 1995)

Before TACHA and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,^**  Senior District Judge.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT¹ 

BROWN, Senior District 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner Edward Charles Berry seeks review of the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Our jurisdiction over this appeal arises from 28 U.S.C. 1291. We construe Berry's pro se pleadings liberally, as required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). In our examination of the district court's order, we review Berry's contentions of legal error de novo. See Sinclair v. Henman, 986 F.2d 407, 408 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 129 (1993).

After our careful review of the record on appeal in light of these standards, and after due consideration of the parties' briefs on appeal, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court's Order and Judgment, dated February 3, 1995, adopting the Findings and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, dated November 21, 1994, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.