FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAR 23, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 8- 11 65 8
D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 92 0 C V-VEH-TMP ANTHONYD. RETIC, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, THE AT TORNEY GEN ERAL OF THE STATE OF AL ABAMA, THE WARDEN KENN ETH L. JONES, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a (Ma rch 2 3, 2 00 9)
Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, DUBINA an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t An th on y D. Reti c (“ Ret ic ”), ap pe al s the de ni al of h is fed eral habe as pe ti ti on bro ug htun de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Re ti c, in fact , fil edtwo
am en de d h ab eas pe ti ti on s at ta ck in g s ep arat e co nv ic ti on s fr om th e Bi rm in gh am , Alab am a, an d B es se m er, Alaba m a, Div is io ns of t he Jef fers on Co un ty Circu it Co urt. Pu rs ua ntto Ru le 2(e ) of th e Ru le s Go ve rn in g S ect io n 2 25 4 c as es , th e di st ric t co urt co ns tru edth e p et it io ns to be part o f th e sa m e h ab eas ap pl ic at io n o n th e b as is th atth e Bi rm in gh am an d B es se m er Di vi si on s wer e p artof t he same ci rcu itco urt. Alt ho ug h t he di st ric t co urt d et erm in edth atth e jud gm en ts were p art of th e sa m e h ab eas ap pl ic at io n, i t fo un d t ha t ea ch jud gm en t h adit s o wn s ep arat e st atut e o f li m it at io ns . The di stric t co urt g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y (“ COA”) o n t hr ee is su es :(1 ) In as m

uc h a s R ul e 2 (e) o f th e Ru le s Go ve rn in g S ect io n 2 25 4 c as es al lo ws m ul ti pl e “ jud gm en ts ” fro m

th e sa m e co urt t o b e joi ne d i n asi ng le habe as ap pl ic at io n, ar e two habe as pe ti ti on s ch al le ng in g c on vi ct io ns res pe ct iv el y in th e Je ffer so n C ou nt y

Cir cu itCo urt (B irming ha m Div is io n) an d the Jef

fers on Co un ty Ci rcu itCo urt (B es se m er Di vi si on ), de em edto be a si ng le habe as pe ti ti on att ack in g
m ul ti pl e jud gm en ts of the same cou rt f orpu rp os es of Rul e 2 (e), o r are th ey
se pa rat e p et it io ns att ack in g ju dg m en ts fro m two di ffer en t co urts ?
2(2 ) If t he an swe r to th e p rev io us is su e is th atth ey are t wo s ep arat e p et it io ns ch al le ng in g c on vi ct io ns in two sep arat e co urts , whi ch of t he two pe ti ti on s fi le d b y pe ti ti on er s ho ul d t hi s co urt h av e acc ep te d a s t he “ am en de d p et it io n” m an da te d b y th e co urt o f ap pe al s’[s] pri orm an da te when bo th set s o f th e co nv ic ti on s ar e in te rrel at edby the all eg edbre ach of asi ng le pl ea ag reem en t? (3 ) If t he an swe r to Iss ue Num be r 1 i s tha t t he two pe ti ti on s fi le d b y pe ti ti on er ar e a s in gl e p et it io n c ha ll en gi ng m ul ti pl e jud gm en ts in th e sa m e st at e
co urt (J effe rs on Co un ty Circu itCo urt), d oe s t he § 2 24 4( d) (1 )(A) o ne -y ear li m it at io n ru n fo r al l ju dg m en ts fro m th e d at e th e la stst at e jud gm en t b ecame fin al , ordo es each st at e “

jud gm en t” ha ve it s o wn o ne -y ear l im it at io n, ev en th ou gh th ey
are a ll joi ne d i n asi ng le ap pl ic at io n?

“ Whe n re vi ewin g t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a h ab eas pe ti ti on , we rev ie w qu es ti on s o f la w andm ix edqu es ti on s o f la w andfact de no vo , andfin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r.” Nylan d v . Moo re , 21 6 F .3d12 64 , 12 66 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rd , read in g t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , andha vi ng th e be ne fitof o ral arg um en t, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d n o
rev ers ib le erro r. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t d en y in g habe as rel ie f. AFFIR MED.
3