A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay22,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

DARYL L. KI NGSOLVE R,

P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. CH AR L E S RA Y; a n d T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE S T AT E OF CO L OR ADO,

R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1171 ( D. C. No . 1 : 0 0 - CV - 0 1 1 0 2 - WYD)

( D . C ol or ado)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e K E L L Y , H E N R Y , andT Y M K O V I C H , C i rcui tJudg es.

D ary l K i ngs ol ver , pr ocee di ng pro se , ap p ea ls th e d istri ct co u rto rde rs deny i ng hi s “mot i on forl eave t o amend i s s ues i n fi r s t[28 U . S. C . ] § 2254 pur s uantt o FR C P 15( c) ( 2) orFR C P 60( b) ( 6) , ” and de ny i ng hi s “mot i on foran o rd e r to c e rtify a q u e stio n o f law to th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f C o lo ra d o .” W e v a c a te- 2-

th e d istric t co u rt o rd e rs, c o n stru e P e tit io n e r K in g so lv e r’s a p p e a l an d a p p e llate br i ef a s an i m pl i ed appl i cat i on forauthor i zat i on t o fi l e another§ 2254 pet i t i on, and denyauthor i zat i on. In 1 9 8 8 P eti ti o n er w as c o n v ict ed in state co u rto f fir st de g ree an d thir d d e g r e e s e x u a l a s s a u l ta n d s e n t e n c e d t o th i rty - two y e a r s ’ i mp r i s o n me n t . On a p p e a l, h is c o n v ic tio n a n ds e n te n c e w e re a ff irm e d . See People v. Ki ngs olver , N o. 8 8 -C A -1 7 3 0 (C o lo . C t. A p p . Ju l. 5, 1 9 9 0 ) (u n p u b lish e d ). In 2 0 0 0 h e filed h is fi r s t§ 2254 pet i t i on underthe A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ct ( “ AE DP A” ) , r a i s i n g s e v e n t e e n c l a i ms . T h e d i s tr i c tc o u rtd e n i e d th e p e t i t i o n . On a p p e a l, th is c o u rtd e n ie d a c e rt ific a te o f a p p e a la b ility a n d d is m is s e d . See Ki ngs olverv. R ay , 2 3 F ed . A p p x . 8 9 9 (10 th C ir . N o v . 1 6 , 2 0 0 1 ) cer t . deni ed , 537 U . S. 844 ( 2002) . I n 2005, he fi l ed a mot i on forauthor i zat i on t o fi l e s econd or s ucce s s i ve § 2254 pet i t i on r ai s i ng s i x cl ai m s . T he mot i on forauthor i zat i on w as d e n ie d . See Ki ngs olverv. R ay, N o. 05- 1387 ( 10th C i r . O ct . 31, 2005) (u n p u b lis h e d o rd e r) . In M a rc h 2 0 0 6 , ap p ro x im a telyfiv e y e a rs a f terth e d istric t co u rt d e n ied h is fi r s t§ 2254 pet i t i on, Pet i t i onerK i ngs ol verfi l ed a “ m ot i on forl eave t o amend i s s ues i n fi r s t§ 2254 pur s uantt o FR C P 15( c) ( 2) orFR C P. 60( b) ( 6) ” and a “mot i on foran or dert o cert i fya ques t i on of l aw t o the Supr eme C ourtof C o lo ra d o ,” s e e k in g to ra ise c laim s h e id e n tifie d a s a m e n d m e n ts to p re v io u sly rai sed cl ai m s. T hese am end ed clai m s i ncluded m i sj oinder of offenses; w i tness- 3-

t amper i ng; pr i ori ncons i s t ents t at ementbyvi ct i m ; tr i al err or s bas ed on admi s s i on of evi dence of s i m i l aract s ; i ns uffi ci encyof evi dence ; s ent enci ng err or s ; and i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . H e al s o as s ert ed a c l ai m bas ed on D unton v. P e op le , 89 8 P . 2d 57 1 (C olo. 19 95 ), argui ng that r evis i on s t o the st at e’s fi rs t d e g re e se x u a l as sa u lt statu te r e q u ire d re v e rsa l o f th e trial c o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is chal l enge t o j uryi ns truct i ons gi ven bythe court . I n a M ar ch 23, 2006 O r der , the d istric t co u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n fo r le a v e to a m e n d . In a M a rc h 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 M in u te O r der , the courtdeni ed the mot i on t o cert i fy . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. A pos t -j udgm entm ot i on m us tbe tr eat ed as a s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on a n d c e rtifie d b ya n a p p e llate p a n e l if it a ss e rts o r re a ss e rts a su b sta n tiv e c laim to s e t a s id e a m o v a n t’ s c ri m in a l c o n v ic tio n . See G onz al ezv. C r os by , 545 U . S. 524, 530- 31 ( 2005) ( deci di ng the ext entt o w hi ch a Fed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) m ot i on fi l ed i n a § 2254 pr ocee di ng s houl d be cons i der ed a s econd ors ucce s s i ve habe as p e tit io n ); s ee als o Spi tz nas v. B oone , 464 F. 3d 1213, 1215 ( 10th C i r . 2006) (“[ u ]nd er G onz alez , a 6 0 (b ) m o tio n is a se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e p e tit io n if it i n s ubs t ance oreffectas s ert s orr eas s ert s a fe der al bas i s forr el i ef f r om the p e titio n e r’ s u n d e rl y in g c o n v ic tio n .” ). Pet i t i onerK i ngs ol ver ’ s m ot i ons forl eave t o amend and t o cert i fy cons t i tut ed an unauthor i zed s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2254 pet i t i on underthe A E D PA . A r evi ew of the mot i ons confi rm s thatPet i t i oners oughtt o r ai s e new s ubs t ant i ve cl ai m s orr ear gue pr i ors ubs t ant i ve cl ai m s chal l engi ng hi s 1988- 4-

cr i m i nal convi ct i on. C ons equent l y , Pet i t i onerw as r equi r ed t o compl yw i th the relev an t pro v isi o n s o f th e A E D P A an d o b tai n p ri o r au tho ri za ti o n fro m this co u rt befor e fi l i ng thi s unauthor i zed § 2254 pe t i t i on i n the di s tr i ctcourti n M ar ch 2006. H e fa ile d to o b ta in th is a u th o ri z a tio n . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 3 )( A ). T h e re fo re , th e d is tr ic t c o u rtla c k e d s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . See Uni ted States v. G allego s, 1 4 2 F . 3 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( percur i am ). In l i gh tof thi s, w e m u s t v a c a te th e o rd e rs d e n y in g th e u n a u th o ri z e d § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n . See C olem an v. Uni ted States , 1 0 6 F . 3 d 3 3 9 , 3 4 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( percur i am ) (re q u irin g tra n sfe r o f

u n a u th o riz e d se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e p e tit io n to a p p e llate c o u rt); see also Spi tz nas , 4 6 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 7 (“ [ s ]i n c e th e c la im w a s s u c c e s s iv e . . . the di s tr i ctcourt. . . coul d onl ydi s m i s s the pet i t i on ortr ans feri tt o us for ce rt ifi ca ti o n . ”). N o n e th e les s, w e w ill c o n stru e P e tit io n e r K in g so lv e r’s a p p e a l an d a p p e llate br i ef a s an i m pl i ed appl i cat i on under§ 2244( b) ( 3) ( A ) forauthor i zat i on t o fi l e a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n . See P eas e v. Kl i nger , 115 F. 3d 763, 764 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (

percur i am ). I n hi s appel l at e br i ef, Pet i t i onerr eas s ert s the cl ai m s r ai s ed i n hi s m ot i ons forl eave t o amend and t o cert i fy . A ft era thor ough r evi ew , w e conc l ude that Pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s do notes t abl i s h the pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng r equi r ed bythe A E D PA cr i t er i a i n § 2244( b) ( 2) . T hes e cl ai m s ar e notbas ed on a ne w rul e of cons t i tut i onal l aw m ade r etr oact i ve t o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew bythe U ni t ed- 5-

S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rtth a t w a s p re v io u s ly u n a v a ila b le , i d. § 2244( b) ( 2) ( A ) , oron fa c ts p re v io u slyu n d isc o v e ra b le th ro u g h th e e x e rc ise o f d u e d ili g e n c e th a t w o u ld est abli sh bycl ear and co nv i ncing ev i den ce that he w as not gui l tyof the offenses, i d. § 2 24 4(b)( 2)( B ). S everal of P et i t i on er’ s cl ai m s ar e si m i l ar t o those uns ucce s s ful l yas s ert ed i n hi s fi r s t§ 2254 pet i t i on; m or eover , the D unton deci s i on i s a s t at e s upr eme courtdeci s i on, nota U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C ourtdeci s i on. T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s M arc h 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 an d M arc h 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 O rde rs are VACAT ED . T he i m pl i ed appl i cat i on forauthor i zat i on t o fi l e a s econd or successi ve § 22 54 peti t i on i s DENI ED . T he mot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris i s GR ANTED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P E R C UR I AM