T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doct r i nes of l aw of t he * c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. 

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

### O c t ob e r4,2006 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 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 4074 E U G E N E C H E E , J R ., D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CV- 5 8 - TC) ( D. C. No . 0 2 - CR- 6 6 - TC)

( D . U t ah)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e H E N R Y , B R I S C O E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. E ugene Chee, J r . , a fe der al pr i s onerappe aring p r o s e, s eeks t o appea l t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2255 m o ti o n t o vaca t e, s etas i de orcorr ect hi s s enten ce . T h e mat t eri s befor e thi s cour ton C hee’ s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of ap p ea labili ty(“C O A ”). O u r j u ri sd ict ion arises u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § § 1 2 9 1 an d 2 2 5 3 (a), and, as w e det er m i ne that C hee has not m ade a “s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of t he deni al of a c o n sti tut i onal r i ght , ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) ; Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 4 8 3 -84 (20 0 0 ), w e d en ya C O A an d d ism iss th is m att er. C hee w as convi ct ed by a j ur y for aggr avat ed s exual abus e and abus i ve s exual- 2-

cont act w hi l e w i t hi n I ndi an countr y . H e w as s ent ence d t o t w o hundr ed an d te n m ont hs of i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch r efl ect ed the tr i al co u rt ’ s appl i cat i on of an o b str u cti on of j us t i ce e nhance m entpur s uantt o § 3C 1. 1 of t he U ni t ed St at es S en tenc ing G u idelines . C h ee fil ed a d ir ec t app ea l of h is c o n v ic tio n an d this co u rt s ubs equent l yaff

i r m ed hi s convicti o n o n J anuary28, 2004. U ni t ed St at es v. C hee, 86 Fed. A ppx. 400 (10 th C ir . 2004) . C hee di d notfi l e a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof c e rt io ra ri . O n J an u ary19, 2006, C hee f i l ed a pe t i t i on under28 U . S. C . § 2255 i n fede r al cour tar gui ng t hathi s s enten cing enhancementw as uncons t i tut i onal l yi m pos ed beca us e he w as found guil t yof havi ng obs t ruct ed j us t i ce byt he s ent enci ng j udge r athert han bya j ur y . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed th is pet i t i on, fi ndi ng i tw as t i m ebarr ed. C hee fi l ed a m ot i on w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour ts eeki ng r econs i der at i on or , i n t he alt ern a tiv e , to a p p ea l th e d en ial o f h is pe ti ti o n . T h e d istri ct co u rtd en ied C h ee ’s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, t r eat ing t he mot i on i ns t ead a s an appe al of i t s deni al of hi s § 2255 pet i t i on. B eca us e t he di s t r i ct cour t di d noti s s ue C hee a C O A ors t at e w hy a c e r t i fi c a t e s h o u l d n o ti s s u e , we d e e m t h a tCh e e ’ s c o n s t ru c t i v e r e q u e s tfo ra CO A w as deni ed. See U ni t ed S t at es v. K ennedy , 225 F. 3d 1187, 1193 n. 3 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) (h o ld in g th a t a C O A is d e e m e d d e n ied if th e d istric t co u rt d o e s n o t ad d re ss its issua n ce w ith in thirtyd ay s). O urgr ant i ng of a CO A i s a j u r i s di ct i onal pr er equi s i t e t o C hee’ s appea l fr om the d en ial o f h is § 2 2 5 5 p eti ti o n . M il ler-E l v. C o ck rell , 5 3 7 U . S . 3 2 2 , 3 3 6 (20 0 3 ).- 3-

W e cons t rue C hee’ s appel l at e br i ef i n s uppor tof hi s not ice o f ap p eal as addi t i onal ar gum enti n s uppor tof hi s appl icat i on fora C O A . T o be ent i t l ed t o a C O A , C hee mu s tma k e “ a s u b s t a n t i a l s h o wi n g o f t h e d e n i a l o f a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t . ” 2 8 U. S . C. § 225 3 (c)(2). To m ake the r equi s i t e s how i ng, C hee mustdemonst r at e “that r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether( or , fort hatm at t er , ag ree that ) t he pet i t i on sh o u ld h av e b ee n reso lved in a d iffe re n t m an n er o r t h at t h e issu es p rese n ted w ere adequa t e t o des er ve enc our agementt o pr oceed fur t her . ” M i l l er - E l , 537 U . S. at336 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o Sl ack, 529 U . S. at 484- 85 ( hol di ng t hatw hen a d istric t co u rt d ism iss e s a h a b e a s p e tit io n o n p ro c e d u ra l g ro u n d s, a p e tit io n e r is e n tit led to a C O A o n lyif h e sh o w s b o th th a t re a so n a b le ju ri s ts w o u ld c o n c lu d e it debat abl e w hetherhe h ad s t at ed a va l i d cons t i tut i onal cl ai m and deba t abl e w het her th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ' s p ro c e d u ra l r u lin g w a s c o rr e c t) . T o d eterm i ne w hetherC hee ha s s at i s fi ed hi s bur den, w e undert ake “ a pr el i m i nary , t hough notdefi ni t i ve, consid era t i on of t he [l egal ] fr amew or k” appl i cabl e t o eac h of hi s cl ai m s. M i l l er - E l , 637 U . S. at338. A l t hough C hee ne ed notdemonst r at e hi s appea l w i l l s ucce ed t o be ent i t l ed t o a C O A , h e m us t“pr ove s o m e th in g m o re th a n th e a b s e n c e o f f ri v o lity o r t h e e x is te n c e o f m e re g o o d fa ith .” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . H avi ng under t aken a r evi ew of C hee' s appl i cat i on for a C O A an d ap pel l at e fi l i ngs , t he di s t r i ctcour t ' s or der , and the ent i r e r ecor d on a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o t h e f r a me wo r k s e to u tb yt h e S u p r e me Co u r ti n M i l l e r - E l , we concl ude C hee i s notent i t l ed t o a C O A . F ort he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , t he di s t r i ct- 4-

co u r t ' s r e s o l u t i o n o f Che e ’ s § 2 2 5 5 mot i o n i s n o t r e a s o n a b l y s u bj e c t t o debat e and t he i s s u e s h e s e e k s t o r a i s e o n a p p e a l a r e n o ta d e q u a t e t o d e s e r v e f u r t her p ro c e e d in g s . Fi r s t , C hee’ s § 2255 pet i t i on w as pr oper l ydeni ed as t i m e- barr ed. For t he purpos es of a pe t i t i on under§ 2255, if a p ri sonerdoes notfi l e a pe t i t i on forw r i tof cert i or ar i w i t h t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme Courtaft erhi s di r ectappea l , t he one- y ear l i m i t at i on p e ri od beg i ns t o run w hen t he ti m e for fi l i ng a cert i orar i peti t i on exp i res . S. C t . R . 13( 1) ; U ni t ed St at es v. B ur ch, 202 F. 3d 1274, 1279 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) . H er e, t h e o n e - y e a rl i mi t a t i o n p e r i o d b e g a n t o ru n o n Ap r i l 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 , n i n e t yd a y s a f t e rwe aff i r m ed C hee’ s convi ct i on on J anuary 28, 2004. I n or derforC hee’ s § 2255 pet i t i on to b e t im ely , it h ad to be fil ed b y A p ri l 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 . S ee 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 (1 ). A s C hee’ s pet i ti o n w as n o t f i l ed unt i l J anuary19, 2006, i tw as t i m e- barr ed and no r eas onabl e j ur i s tcoul d concl ude otherw i s e. A ltern a tiv e ly , ev e n a ss u m in g C h e e ' s § 2 2 5 5 p e tit io n w a s tim e ly , it unques t i onabl yfai l s on t he m er i t s . C hee es s ent i al l y ar gues t hat B ooker i s not a new rule o f c ri m inal p roc ed u re a n d o u g h t t o b e a p p li ed retroac ti v ely . D esp it e C h ee ’s pr ot es t at i ons t o t he c o n tr ary , B ookerdoes i ndeed “ r epr es ent [] a new rul e, ” w hi ch “d o es n o t app lyretroac ti v elyto c ri m inal ca ses th at be ca m e final b efo re . . . Jan u ary 12, 2005" and i t “does not appl y r etr oact i vel y on col l at er al r evi ew . ” U n it ed St at es v. B el l amy , 411 F. 3d 1182, 11 8 4 -88 (10 th Ci r . 2005) . B eca us e C hee' s convi ct i on w as final w ell b efo re tha t date, he m ayn o t ben efit f ro m B o o k er. L ikew ise, C h ee ’s- 5-

nextar gum ent , t hathis a p p ea l is t i m el ybeca us e i tw as fi l ed w i t hi n one y earof B ooker , i s equal l y unavai l i ng. W hi l e i ti s t rue thatt he one y earl i m i t at i on per i od of 28 U . S. C . § 2255 runs fr om t he dat e the Supr eme C our tr ecogni zes a r i ghtand decl ar es i tr etr oact i ve, t he Supr eme C our tdi d notdecl ar e thati t s hol di ng i n B ooker w o ul d appl yr etr oact i vel y . I d. at1188. B ey ond t hi s , C hee pr es ent s no m eani ngful ar gum entt hatt he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i n t hi s cas e sh o u ld b e equi t abl yt ol l ed. See M ar s h v . So a r e s , 2 2 3 F. 3 d 1 2 1 7 , 1 2 2 0 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( h o l d i n g e q u i t a b l e t o l l i ng av ail ab le i f “ an inm ate d il igen tl yp u rsue s h is cl aim s an d d em o n str ates th at t h e fail u re to tim e ly f

ile 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 b e y o n d h is c o n tr o l” ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e D E N Y C h e e ’s a p p lica tio n fo r a C O A a n d D IS M IS S th is m att er. E n tered fo r t h e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge