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

### M ay16,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT GE OR GE J AM E S AL L E N, P e tit io n e r – A p p e llan t, v. ST E V E B E C K , W ar den, R es pondent– A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 5168 ( D. C. No. 0 4 - CV - 6 3 8 - CV E) (N .D . O k la .)

ORDE R DE NYI NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. G eorge Jam es A l l en, a st at e pri soner proceed i ng pro se, request s a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty( “C O A ”) t o appea l t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 habea s pet i t i on. Fors ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons s etfor th byt he di s tr i ctcourt , w e DE NY a C O A and D I SM I SS . Al l e n wa s c o n v i c t e d o f two c o u n t s o f

s e x u a l l ya b u s i n g a mi n o rc h i l d . He w a s s e n te n c e d to c o n s e c u tiv e p ri s o n te rm s th a t to ta le d o n e h u n d re d tw e n ty y e a rs . H e appe al ed t o t he O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s ( “O C C A ”) , and on D ece m ber19, 1995, hi s convi ct i ons w er e affi r m ed. A l m os ts i x y ear s l at er , on J anuary2, 2001, A l l en fi l ed an appl i cat i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i n the D istric t C o u rt o f

T u lsa C o u n ty . F o llo w in g a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g , the sta teA l l en’ s pet i t i on w as fi l ed af t erA pr i l 24, 1996, t he effec t i ve dat e of the 1 A n ti terrori sm an d E ffec ti v e D ea th P en altyA ct (“A E D P A ”); as a re su lt , A E D P A ’s pr ovi s i ons appl yt o t hi s cas e. See R o g e rs v . G ib s o n , 1 7 3 F .3 d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 2 n .1 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( c i t i ng Li nd h v . M urph y , 52 1 U. S. 32 0 ( 19 97 ) ) . A ED PA condi t i ons a pet i t i oner ’ s r i ghtt o appea l a deni al of habe as r el i ef unde r§ 2254 u p o n a g ra n t o f

a C O A . 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A) . A C O A m a yb e iss u e d “ o n ly i f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal rig h t.” § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). T h is re q u ire s A llen to sh o w “ th a t re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld debat e w hether( or , forthatm att er , agr ee that ) t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en re so lv e d in a d iffe re n t m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( q u o t a t i o n s o mi t t e d ) . Be c a u s e t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r td e n i e d Al l e n a CO A, h e m a yn o t ap p e a l th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n a b se n t a g ra n t o f C O A b yth is c o u rt . - 2 - di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed r el i ef on A ugus t22, 2003. A l l en appe al ed, and on J une 18, 2004, the O C C A aff

i r m ed the di s tr i ctcour t . A l l en then fi l ed thi s § 2254 appl i cat i on on J ul y 12, 2004, i n fede r al di s tr i ct court . R es pondentB eck oppos ed the pet i t i on, ar gui ng thati tw as t i m e- barr ed. A l l en ar gued i n r es pons e thatt he doctr i ne of e qui t abl e t ol l i ng j us t i fi ed hi s del ay . T he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded that A l l en’ s habea s pet i t i on w as t i m e- barr ed and di s m i s s ed. H avi ng fai l ed t o s ecur e a C O A f ro m th a t co u rt, A llen n o w se e k s a C O A f ro m th is c o u rt. 1 T he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons forappl i cat i ons fora w r i tof habe as corpus i s s et forth in 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(d). Itst at es: (1) A 1 -y ea r pe ri o d o f li m it ati o n sh all ap p lyto an ap p li ca ti o n fo r a w r i tof habe as corpus bya per s on i n cus t odypur s uantt o the j udgm entof a St at e court . T he l i m i t at i on per i od s hal l run fr om t he l at es tof – ( A ) the dat e on w hi ch the j udgm entbeca m e fi nal byt he concl us i on of di r ectr evi ew ort he expi r at i on of the t i m e fors eeki ng s u c h r e v i e w;- 3 -

( B ) t he dat e on w hi ch the i m pedi m entt o fi l i ng an appl i cat i on cr eat ed bySt at e ac t i on i n vi ol at i on of the C ons t i tut i on orl aw s of the U ni t ed St at es i s r emoved, i f the appl i cantw as pr event ed fr om fi l i ng bys uch St at e ac t i on; ( C ) t he dat e on w hi ch the cons t i tut i onal r i ghtas s er t ed w as i ni t i al l yr ecogni zed bythe Supr eme C our t , i f the r i ghthas been n e w lyre c o g n ize d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt a n d m a d e re tro a c tiv e ly appl i cabl e t o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew ; or ( D) t h e d a t e o n wh i c h th e fa c tu a l p r e d i c a t e o f th e c l a i m o rc l a i ms pr es ent ed coul d have be en di s cover ed thr ough the exe r ci s e of due di l i gence . (2 ) T h e tim e d u rin g w h ich a p ro p e rlyfiled a p p lica tio n fo r S tate pos t - convi ct i on orothercol l at er al r evi ew w i th r es pectt o the p erti n en t j u d g m en t or claim is pe n d ing sh all n o t be c o u n ted to w ard anyper i od of l i m i t at i on underthi s s ubs ect i on. B eca us e thi s l aw w enti nt o effecton A pr i l 24, 1996, aft erA l l en’ s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal , A l l en had unt i l A pr i l 24, 1997 t o fi l e hi s pet i t i on. See U ni t ed S ta te s v . H u rs t, 3 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 6 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). U nder28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 2) , the t i m e dur i ng w hi ch a pr oper l yfi l ed appl i cat i on fors t at e pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef orothercol l at er al r evi ew i s pendi ng d o e s n o t co u n t to w a rd s th e o n e -y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s. H o w e v e r, A llen d id notfi l e hi s s t at e appl i cat i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef unt i l J anuary2, 2002, over fiv e y e a rs a f

te r t h e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s h a d ru n . A llen m a k e s tw o a rg u m e n ts th a t eq u itab le to lli n g e x c u se s th is d e lay. F irst, h e a ss e rts th a t h is a p p e llate c o u n se l fa iled to file a n a p p lica tio n fo r p o stconvi ct i on r el i ef as s he had pr om i s ed. E qui t abl e t ol l i ng “i s onl yavai l abl e w hen a n in m a te d ili g e n tlyp u rsu e s h is c laim s a n d d e m o n stra tes th a t th e fa ilu re to tim e ly fi l e w as caus ed byextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s bey ond hi s contr ol . ” M ar s h v.- 4 -

Soar es , 223 F. 3d 1217, 1220 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . B eca us e ther e i s no cons t i tut i onal r i gh tt o c ou ns e l i n c ol l a t e r a l pr oc e e di ng s , s e e Pe nn s y l va ni a v. Fi nl e y , 48 1 U. S. 551, 555 ( 1987) , w e have hel d that“l ack of as s i s t ance fr om couns el [i s ] not s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s w arr ant i ng equi t abl e t ol l i ng. ” M ar s h, 223 F. 3d at1220. M or eover , the ei ght - y eardel aybetw een the conc l us i on of A l l en’ s di r ectappea l and the fi l i ng of the i ns t antact i on bel i es anyconcl us i on th a tA l l e n p u r s u e d h i s h a b e a s c l a i m s d i l i g e n t l y. A llen a lso a rg u e s th a t eq u itab le to lli n g sh o u ld b e a p p lied b e c a u se h e is actual l yi nnocent . T he evi dence s uppor t i ng hi s actual i nnocenc e cl ai m cons i s t s of lette rs f ro m th e v ictim s o f

se x u a l ab u se re c a n tin g th e ir trial te stim o n y . E q u itab le t ol l i ng forhabea s corpus r el i ef maybe ava i l abl e i n extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s s uch as w hen “a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on [w i l l ] r es ul t [ ] i n the convi ct i on of one w ho i s actual l yi nnocentori ncompet ent . ” M i l l erv. M arr , 141 F. 3d 976, 978 ( 10th C i r . 1998) . C l ai m s of ac tual i nnocenc e, how ever , ar e s ubj ectt o an exa ct i ng s ta n d a rd , a n d in m o s t c a s e s , a re s im p ly n o t c o g n iz a b le th ro u g h h a b e a s p e titio n s . A s th e S u p re m e C o u rt e x p lain e d in H e rre ra v . C o lli n s, 5 0 6 U .S . 3 9 0 , 4 0 0 (1 9 9 3 ): “C l ai m s of ac tual i nnocenc e bas ed on new l ydi s cover ed evi dence have ne verbeen hel d t o s t at e a gr ound forfede r al habea s r el i ef a bs entan i ndepende nt c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n o c c u rr in g in th e u n d e rl y in g s ta te c ri m in a l p ro c e e d in g . . . . T hi s rul e i s gr ounded i n the pr i nci pl e thatfede r al habea s cour t s s i tt o ens ur e that i ndi vi dual s ar e noti m pr i s oned i n vi ol at i on of the C ons t i tut i on – nott o corr ectT he C our ti n H err er a di d notal t ogetherpr ecl ude fr ees t andi ng cl ai m s of 2 a c tu a l in n o c e n c e , an d a ss u m e d fo r a rg u m e n t’s s a k e , “th a t in a c a p ital c a se a tru ly per s uas i ve demonstr at i on of ‘ actual i nnocenc e’ m ade a ft ert r i al w oul d r endert he e x e c u tio n o f

a d e fe n d a n t u n c o n stitu tio n a l, an d w a rra n t fe d e ra l h a b e a s re lief if ther e w er e no s t at e ave nue open t o pr oces s s uch a c l ai m . ” H err er a, 506 U . S. at 417. B eca us e A l l en di d notr ece i ve a de ath s ent ence , t hi s exce pt i on does not appl y . See M i l one v. C amp, 22 F. 3d 693, 700 ( 7th C i r . 1994) ; buts ee W hi t e v. K eane , 51 F. Supp. 2d 495, 504 ( S. D . N . Y . 1999) ( s ugges t i ng thata l i ber al r eadi ng o f H errera ex tend s the ex ce p ti o n to n o n -ca p it al ca ses). F u rth erm o re, H errera in d ica tes th a t a f

re e sta n d in g a c tu a l in n o c e n c e c laim is n o t co g n iza b le a t all in habea s w hen a s t at e ave nue forr el i ef i s open, s uch as exec ut i ve cl emency . See H err er a, 506 U . S. at417. T he r ecor d does noti ndi cat e thatA l l en has s ought e x e c u t i v e c l e m e n c y. - 5 - err or s of fa ct . ” B eca us e A l l en does notal l ege thatthes e l et t er s w er e notgi ven thei rdue w ei ghtathi s s t at e tr i al as a r es ul tof a c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, but r atherthatt hei rappea r ance aft erthe tr i al m er el yaffect s the bal ance of the evi dence , he as s ert s a “f r ees t andi ng” ac tual i nnocenc e cl ai m . See, e. g. , Sel l er s v. W a rd , 1 3 5 F .3 d 1 3 3 3 , 1 3 3 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). A s s tate d b yth e d istric t co u rt, A l l en’ s “‘ new l ydi s cover ed evi dence ’ . . . i s actual l ythe cl ai m i t s el f, r atherthan the fa ctual pr edi cat e of a i ndepende ntcons t i tut i onal cl ai m . ” Such a f r ees t andi ng cl ai m of ac tual i nnocenc e i s notavai l abl e i n thi s non- capi t al cas e. 2 A ll en ’s ac tual inn o ce n ce claim h as a lr ea d yb ee n affo rde d an ev iden ti ary hear i ng and appe l l at e r evi ew bythe s t at e court s . U nderH err er a, w e ar e pr ecl uded fr om gi vi ng A l l en’ s l ett er s a thi r d l ook. A s m uch as thes e r eca nt at i ons gi ve us paus e, i f H err er a i s t o be r evi s i t ed, i ti s notforus t o do s o.- 6 -

A l l en’s r equ estfor a C O A i s DE NI ED and t he ap peal i s DI S M I S S ED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge