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

### A p ril2,2007 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 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 6326 v. ( W . D . O kl ahoma) HE NR Y L AWRE NC E BO RR E GO, J R ., D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. (D . C . N o s. 0 6 -C V -57 -T a n d 0 1 - CR- 9 1 - T)

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. H enryB orr ego pl eade d gui l tyi n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he W e ste rn D istric t o f

O k lah o m a to o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d is tr ib u te fiv e k ilo g ra m s o r m o re o f c o c a in e . See 21 U . S. C § 846. H e w as s e n te n c e d o n A p ri l 2 9 , 2 0 0 2 , to 1 5 1 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. W e a ffirm e d h is c o n v ic tio n o n a p p e a l. See Uni t ed Stat es v. B or r ego , 66 F. A pp’ x. 797, 798–800 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). H e so u g h t a w rit o f c e rtio ra ri f

ro m th e S u p re m e C o u rt, b u t h is p e titio n w a s d e n ie d o n O c to b e r 6 , 2 0 0 3 . See Borr ego v. Uni t ed Stat es , 54 0 U. S. 9 3 3 (2 0 0 3 ). O n Ja n u a ry1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , M r. B o rre g o filed w ith th e d istric t co u rt a m o tio n fo r h a b e a s re lief u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , co n ten d in g th a t Uni t ed Stat es v.-2-

B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2006) , r equi r ed a r educt i on i n hi s s ent ence . T h e c o u rt deni ed the mot i on beca us e ( 1) i tw as unt i m el yunder28 U . S. C . § 2255 ¶ 6( 1) ( m ot i on m us tbe fi l ed w i thi n one y earof convi ct i on’ s becomi ng fi nal ) and ( 2) B ookerd o e s n o t ap p lyre tro a c tiv e lyto ju d g m e n ts th a t h a d b e c o m e fin a l b e fo re it w a s h a n d e d d o w n . It th e n d e n ied h is re q u e st fo r a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty (C O A ). See 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( B ) ( r equi r i ng C O A t o appea l deni al of § 2255 m o ti o n ). O n D ece m ber15, 2006, M r . B orr ego fi l ed w i th thi s courtan appl i cat i on for a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty . H i s br i ef i n s uppor tof the appl i cat i on cont ends t hat ( 1) hi s m ot i on w as t i m el y , as he fi l ed i tw i thi n one y earof B ooker , s ee 2 8 U. S . C. § 2255 ¶ 6( 3) ( one- y eardeadl i ne runs fr om “the dat e on w hi ch the r i ghtas s er t ed w a s in iti a llyre c o g n ize d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt, i f th a t rig h t h a s b e e n n e w ly r ecogni zed bythe Supr eme C our tand made r etr oact i vel yappl i cabl e t o cas es on co ll ateral rev iew ”); an d (2) B ookerapp l i es r et roact i velyt o h i s conv i ct i on becau se it i n terp re ted a fe d e ra l sta tu te. W e d e n ya C O A a n d d ism iss th e a p p e a l. A C O A w i l l i s s ue “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the d en ial o f a co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t. ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(2). T h is st an d ard re q u ire s “ a d e m o n stra tio n th a t . . . inc lu d e s s h o w in g 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 . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473,-3-

48 4 (200 0) ( i nternal quotat i on m arks om i t t ed). In ot her w ords, an ap pli cant m ust s how thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ' s r es ol ut i on of the cons t i tut i onal cl ai m w as ei ther “deba t abl e orw r ong. ” Id. M r. B o rreg o ’s co n v ict ion b ec am e final o n the d ate the S u p rem e C o u rt d e n ie d c e rt io ra ri . See G r i f f i th v. Kentucky , 479 U . S. 314, 321 n. 6 ( 1987) ( convi ct i on becomes fi nal w hen “a j udgm entof convi ct i on has been r ender ed, t he avai l abi l i tyof appe al exhaus t ed, and the t i m e fora pet i t i on forcert i or ar i el aps ed ora pet i t i on forcert i or ar i fi nal l ydeni ed. ”) . B eca us e thatdat e w as pr e- B ooker , he c a n n o t o b ta in a n yre lie f b a s e d o n th a t d e c is io n . S e e Un i t e dS ta t e s v . B e l la my , 411 F. 3d 1182, 1186 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( “W e now j oi n al l otherci r cui t s thathave exami ned the ques t i on and conc l ude B ookerdoes notappl yr etr oact i vel yt o i ni t i al habea s pet i t i ons . ”) . N o r eas onabl e j ur i s tcoul d di s put e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng on the r etr oact i vi tyi s s ue. T hus , r egar dl es s of w hetherhi s § 2255 m ot i on w as t i m el y , M r . B orr ego i s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef. W e D E N Y a C O A an d D IS M IS S the a p p ea l. W e a lso D E N Y M r. B o rreg o ’s m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a up e ris . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge