A ft erexami ni ng the br i ef a nd appel 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 tthe det erm i nat i on of 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 c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

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

### Ju n e20,2007 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 GU I LLERM O A . GO M EZ,

P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, N o. 07- 1118 v. ( D . C ol or ado) R O N L E Y B A , Wa r d e n ; J O H N W. SU T H E R S, C ol or ado A t t orney G e n e ra l, R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - c v - 7 9 4 - Z L W)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. G ui l l erm o G om ez, a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i ty( C O A ) t o appea l the deni al bythe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor th e D is tr ic t o f

C o lo ra d o o f

h is a p p lic a tio n fo r r e lie f u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . See 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(1)(b ) (r eq u ir ing C O A to ap p ea l den ial o f § 2 2 5 4 ap p li ca ti o n ). T he di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i ned thatM r . G om ez ha d fi l ed hi s appl i cat i on aft erthe-2-

s t atut oryone- y earl i m i t at i on per i od had expi r ed, deni ed hi s appl i cat i on, and d e n ie d a C O A . H e cont ends thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n notcons i der i ng the r e a s o n s h e o ffe r e d fo rh a v i n g fi l e d h i s a p p l i c a t i o n o u to f t i me . We d e n ya CO A a n d d ism iss th e a p p e a l. M r . Go me z wa s c o n v i c t e d o f s e x u a l a s s a u l to n a c h i l d i n M a y2 0 0 0 . On appea l t o the C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s , hi s convi ct i on w as aff i r m ed on M ay8, 2003. H i s pet i t i on fora w r i tof ce r t i or ar i fr om the C ol or ado Supr eme C our tw as deni ed on M ay3, 2004. O n Sept ember15, 2004, M r . G om ez f i l ed a r eques tunder C ol o. R . C r i m . P. 35( b) forpos t convi ct i on r el i ef, w hi ch w as deni ed on D ece m ber16, 2004. M or e than a y earl at er , on A pr i l 14, 2006, he fi l ed a mot i on forpos t convi ct i on r el i ef unde rC ol o. R . C r i m . P. 35( c) , w hi ch w as pendi ng w hen h e file d h is § 2 2 5 4 a p p lic a tio n o n M a y1 0 , 2 0 0 6 . T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed the appl i cat i on beca us e i thad notbeen f i l ed w ith in th e o n e -y e a r lim itatio n p e rio d u n d e r th e A n tit e rro rism a n d E ffe c tiv e D e a th Penal tyA ct , 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) . T he courtcomput ed ( 1) thatthe oney earper i od began on A ugus t2, 2004, w hen M r . G om ez’ s t i m e fors eeki ng r evi ew in th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rte x p ir e d , s ee R hi ne v. B oone , 182 F. 3d 1153, 1155 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ; Sup. C t . R . 13( 1) ( pet i t i on forw r i tof ce r t i or ar i m us tbe fi l ed w i thi n 90 day s of entryof j udgm ent ) ; ( 2) thatthi s per i od w as t ol l ed under § 2244( d) ( 2) fr om Sept ember15, 2004, t o D ece m ber16, 2004, w hi l e hi s 35( b) m ot i on forpos t convi ct i on r el i ef w as pendi ng; and ( 3) thatthi s per i od had expi r ed-3-

befor e he f

i l ed hi s 35( c) m ot i on. T he courtthen r ej ect ed M r . G om ez’ s cont ent i on th a t h is re a so n s fo r th e d e lay co n stitu ted e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s th a t w o u ld ju s tif ye q u ita b le to llin g . “W hen the di s tr i ctcourtdeni es a habe as pet i t i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds w ith o u t re a c h in g th e p riso n e r’s u n d e rly in g c o n stitu tio n a l cla im , a C O A sh o u ld iss u e w h e n th e p riso n e r sh o w s, a t lea st, th a t ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld fin d it debat abl e w hetherthe pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal ri g h t and that juri sts of rea so n w o u ld find itd eb atab le w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt w as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 (20 0 0 ). M r. G o m ez d o es n o t, an d co u ld n o t, ch all en g e the d istri ct co u rt ’s det erm i nat i on thathe fa i l ed t o fi l e hi s § 2254 appl i cat i on w i thi n the one- y ear l i m i t at i on per i od. H e does ar gue, how ever , thathe has pr ovi ded s uffi ci ent g ro u n d s fo r r e q u ir in g e q u ita b le to llin g . W e d is a g re e . T he one- y earl i m i t at i on per i od i n § 2244( d) m aybe equi t abl yt ol l ed w hen the in m ate d em o n str ates tha t he d il igen tl yp u rsue d h is cl aim s an d that h is fail u re to file w ith in th e lim ita tio n p e ri o d w a s c a u s e d b ye x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See Mars h v. Soar es , 2 2 3 F .3 d 1 2 1 7 , 1 2 2 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). In h is p lea d in g s in thi s courtM r . G om ez c ont ends thathi s del ays houl d be exc us ed bec aus e ( 1) he di d notr ece i ve appoi nt ed couns el t o hel p hi m fi l e a ha beas appl i cat i on, ( 2) the a tto rn e yw h o a ss iste d h im w ith h is 3 5 (b ) m o tio n d id n o t ad v ise h im o n h o w to file a habe as appl i cat i on, and ( 3) he i s unfami l i arw i th the Engl i s h l anguage . B ut-4-

these are not extraor dinaryci rcum st ances w arr anti ng equ i t able t oll i ng . B ecause “[t ] her e i s no cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o an att orneyi n s t at e pos t - convi ct i on p ro c e e d in g s ,” C ol em an v. Thomps on , 501 U . S. 722, 752 ( 1991) , deni al of ap p o inted co u n sel an d ineffe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel are n o t extrao rdin ary c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See Fl em i ng v. E vans , 4 8 1 F .3 d 1 2 4 9 a t * 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). N e ith e r i s u n fa m ilia ri ty w ith th e E n g lis h la n g u a g e . See Tur nerv. Johns on , 177 F. 3d 390, 391–92 ( 5th C i r . 1999) ( unfami l i ar i tyw i th the l aw due t o i l l i t er acydoes n o t to ll l im itatio n p e rio d ); Jam is on v. Jones , 1 9 7 F ed . A p p ’x 7 4 3 , 7 4 6 (10 th C ir . 2006) ( fol l ow i ng Turne r ); G onz al es v. B eck , 1 1 8 F ed . A p p ’x 4 4 4 , 4 4 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (s a m e ); Ma l o n e v . Ok la h o ma , 100 Fed. A pp’ x 795, 798 ( 10th C i r . 2004) (sa m e ); Sm i th v. Su thers , 1 8 F e d . A p p ’x 7 2 7 , 7 2 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (s a m e ); Uni t ed Stat es v. C or dova , 202 F. 3d 283 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( unpubl i s hed t abl e dec i s i on) (s a m e ). M r . G om ez ha s notdemonstr at ed thathe pur s ued hi s cl ai m s w i th di l i gence or that hi s del ayw as caused b yextr aordi naryci rcum st ances. N o reasonab l e j uri st c o u ld d e b a te th e d istric t co u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t M r. G o m e z w a s n o t en tit led to equi t abl e t ol l i ng. W e D E N Y a C O A , D E N Y hi s r eques tt o pr ocee d i n f o r ma p a up e ris , an d D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge