
    Tikila WILLARD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Arlene HICKSON; Attorney General of the State of New Mexico, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 10-2171.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Jan. 10, 2011.
    Tikila Willard, Grants, NM, pro se.
    Margaret Elizabeth McLean, Esq., Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Petitioner was convicted on state drug charges and sentenced to a total of nineteen years in prison. After unsuccessfully challenging her conviction and sentence in the state courts, Petitioner filed the instant petition for federal habeas relief, in which she raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, judicial bias, prosecutorial misconduct, and insufficiency of the evidence. The case was assigned to a magistrate judge, who wrote a twenty-eight-page report and recommendation concluding that federal habeas relief was not warranted on any of Petitioner’s claims. After conducting a de novo review of the record, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissed the case.

After carefully reviewing Petitioner’s filings and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the district court erred in dismissing the petition. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). We also conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the court erred in denying Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing. Thus, for substantially the same reasons stated by the magistrate judge and the district court, we DENY the application for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. 
      
       This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     