
    William LOGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sam CLINE, Warden, Ellsworth Correctional Facility; Attorney General of Kansas, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 08-3227.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    March 23, 2009.
    William Loggins, Ellsworth, KS, pro se.
    Jared S. Maag, Attorney General for the State of Kansas, Topeka, KS, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before HARTZ, McKAY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner, a pro se state prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his § 2254 ha-beas petition. In his habeas petition, Petitioner raised numerous issues relating to the sufficiency of the evidence, the representation he received at trial and on appeal, and several claimed instances of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. The district court’s twenty-page memorandum and order considered each of the asserted issues and determined that Petitioner was not entitled to federal habeas relief on any of these grounds.

To obtain a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2). In order to meet this burden, he must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved 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 quotation marks omitted).

After carefully reviewing Petitioner’s brief, the district court’s disposition, and the record on appeal, including the transcripts, rulings, and other records from the state court proceedings, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s denial of Petitioner’s claims. For substantially the reasons given by the district court, we DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appeala-bility 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       This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
     