Neal v. Province, No. 11-6130 (10th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 12, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court SIR TRAMANE ANTOINE NEAL, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 11-6130 (D.C. No. 10-CV-01120-C) (W.D. Okla.) v. GREG PROVINCE, Respondent - Appellee. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. Mr. Sir Neal, a state inmate proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability ( COA ) to appeal from the district court s denial of his 28 U.S.C § 2254 petition for habeas corpus including a request for an evidentiary hearing. See Neal v. Province, No. CIV 10 1120 C, 2011 WL 1375969 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 12, 2011). Mr. Neal was convicted of aggravated attempt to elude a police officer after former conviction of two or more felonies and sentenced to a term of 25 years. 1 R. 4. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See Neal v. Province, No. CIV 10 1120 C, Doc. 10-1. The district court adopted the thorough report and recommendation of the assigned magistrate judge. The magistrate judge concluded, inter alia, that the evidence was sufficient to convict, that the jury could consider prior sentences and the possibility of parole during sentencing under state law, and that Mr. Neal had not demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel. Neal v. Province, No. CIV 10 1120 C, 2011 WL 1376008 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 21, 2011). We have reviewed Mr. Neal s multiple propositions of error against a backdrop of the deference accorded state court decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and presumption of correctness of state court factual findings, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e), and conclude that the district court s resolution of the claims (as amplified by the magistrate judge s report and recommendation) is not reasonably debatable. We DENY a COA, DENY IFP status as moot, and DISMISS the appeal. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.