T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a se , res ju d ica ta a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, fo r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### Ju n e1,2007 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 RA ND Y L. LESKE, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. H O Y T B R IL L , W a rd e n o f th e K it C a rso n C o rre c tio n a l C e n ter in Bur l i ng t on , Col or a do ; J O SEPH O R T I Z , E xecut i ve D i r ect orof the C olor ado D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s; a n d T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE S T AT E OF CO L OR ADO, R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1535 ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - C V - 1 8 3 5 - Z L W)

(D . C o lo .)

OR DER DENYI 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. Pet i t i onerR andyL . L es ke i s a pr i s oneri n the cus t odyof the C ol or ado D epart m entof C orr ect i ons and i s curr ent l yhous ed atthe K i tC ar s on C orr ect i onal C ent eri n B ur l i ngt on, C ol or ado. I n 2006, M r . L es ke fi l ed a pro se appl i cat i on for a w r i tof habe as corpus i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof C o lo ra d o u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § § 2 2 4 1 a n d 2 2 5 4 c h a llen g in g h is 1 9 9 4 c o n v ictio n inI n addi t i on t o hi s m ot i on fora C O A fi l ed February27, 2007, M r . L es ke 1 filed a se c o n d m o tio n a sk in g th is c o u rt to iss u e a C O A o n M a y2 5 , 2 0 0 7 . T h is se c o n d m o tio n a p p a re n tlyw a s filed in re sp o n se to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s n o tice th a t it di d noti nt end t o fi l e a br i ef unl es s or der ed t o do s o. M r . L es ke’ s s econd mot i on r ai s es no s epar at e i s s ues and w i l l be cons i der ed al ong w i th hi s fi r s tm ot i on. - 2 - D e n v e r D istric t C o u rt fo r v a rio u s s e x c rim e s a g a in st a c h ild , as w e ll as h is s ent ence of 28 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . A ft erM r . L es ke r es ponded t o the m agi s tr at e’ s or dert o s how caus e as t o w hyhi s pet i t i on s houl d notbe di s m i s s ed as unt i m el y , the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed the appl i cat i on and di s m i s s ed the ac t i on as barr ed b ythe li m i t at i on peri od i n 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(d). T he d i stri ctcou rtal so is s u e d a n o rd e r d e n y in g th e a p p lic a tio n fo r a c e rt ific a te o f a p p e a la b ility (“ C O A ” ). See 1 0 th C ir. R . 2 2 .1 . M r. L e sk e n o w se e k s a C O A f ro m th is c o u rt. 1 A C O A m ayi 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 deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) . W e have hel d that u n d e r th is s tan d a rd a n a p p lica n t m u st s h o w “ th a t re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld d e b a te w h e th e r (o r, fo r th a t m a tter, a g re e th a t) th e p e tit io n sh o u ld h a v e b e e n re so lv e d in a di ffe r entm annerorthatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve encour agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Tayl or , 454 F. 3d 1075, 1078 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) . W hen a di s tr i ctcourthas di s m i s s ed a habe as pet i t i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds , a C O A w i l l i s s ue onl yw hen “j ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t, an d th a t ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld fin d it d e b a tab le- 3 -

w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Slack v . McD ani el , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ). Ha v i n g r e v i e we d M r . L e s k e ’ s b r i e f o n a p p e a l a n d th e r e c o r d b e l o w, we l i kew i s e dec l i ne t o i s s ue a CO A fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons as thos e s t at ed b ythe d istri ct co u rt . T h e C o lorad o S u p rem e C o u rtaffirm ed M r. L esk e’s c o n v ic tio n o n A p ri l 1 3 , 1 9 9 8 . See Peopl e v. Les ke , 9 5 7 P . 2 d 1 0 3 0 (C o lo. 19 9 8 ); see also A ppl i cat i on fora W r i tof H abea s C orpus Pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . A . § 2254; § 2 2 4 1 (D o c k e t E n try3 ) (h e re in a f ter “ A p p lica tio n ” ) a t 2 . A c c o rd in g to h is pet i t i on, M r . L es ke fi l ed tw o m ot i ons forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i n the C ol or ado c o u rts. H is first w a s filed o n Ja n u a ry3 1 , 2 0 0 0 , an d th e p ro c e e d in g s re late d to th a tmo t i o n r e ma i n e d p e n d i n g u n t i l M a r c h 5 , 2 0 0 3 . Ap p l i c a t i o n a t3 - 4 . On Sept ember24, 2003, M r . L es ke fi l ed a s econd s t at e pet i t i on forpos t - convi ct i on re lie f a n d th is m a tte r p ro c e e d e d in s ta te c o u rt u n til N o v e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 . A ppl i cat i on at4- 5. M r . L es ke then fi l ed hi s curr entfede r al habea s appl i cat i on on A u g u s t 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 . U nderSect i on 2244( d) ( 1) , a one- y earl i m i t at i on per i od appl i es t o an a p p lica tio n fo r a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s in fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt. R e lev a n t to th is a c t i o n , th e l i mi t a t i o n p e r i o d ru n s f r o m “ th e d a t e o n wh i c h th e j u d g me n tb e c a me fi nal bythe conc l us i on of di r ectr evi ew orthe expi r at i on of the t i m e fors eeki ng su c h re v iew ,” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d )(1 )(A ), b u t itis to lled d u rin g th e tim e sta teW e conc urw i th the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng thatthe otherpr ovi s i ons of 2 S e c tio n 2 2 4 4 (d )( 1 ) d o n o t a p p ly to M r. L e s k e ’s a p p lic a tio n . - 4 - p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re v ie w is p e n d in g , s ee i d. § 2244( d) ( 2) . M r . L es ke has not 2 al l eged thathe pet i t i oned the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tforr evi ew of the deci s i on of the C ol or ado Supr eme C our t , s o the appl i cabl e one- y earl i m i t at i on p eriod b eg an run n ing w h en the tim e to p eti ti o n the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt e x p ir e d – th a t is , o n J u ly 1 3 , 1 9 9 8 . S e e L o c ke v . Sa ffl e , 237 F. 3d 1269, 1273 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); s ee als o U .S . S u p . C t. R . 1 3 (p e tit io n fo r w rit o f c e rtio ra ri is tim e ly if

file d w ith in 9 0 d a y s o f e n tr yo f

ju d g m e n t b ys ta te c o u rt ). W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthat , beca us e M r . L es ke di d notfi l e for pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i n the C ol or ado s t at e court s unt i l J anuary2000, hi s fede r al pet i t i on w as unt i m el ybyovera y ear . M r . L es ke ar gues agai ns tthi s concl us i on by not i ng thathe w as r equi r ed t o exhaus thi s s t at e courtr emedi es befor e pr ocee di ng to fe d e ra l co u rt, an d th a t b e c a u se h is s tate -c o u rt fili n g s w e re tim e lyu n d e r sta te l aw , hi s fede r al l i m i t at i on per i od di d notbegi n t o run unt i l N ovember2005 w hen hi s s econd s t at e courtr evi ew beca m e fi nal . O peni ng B r . on A ppeal at2; R e sp o n se to O rd e r to S h o w C a u se (D o c k e t E n try1 0 ) a t 3 -5 . B u t th o se a rg u m e n ts run afoul of the pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut e, w hi ch t ol l s the l i m i t at i on per i od o n lyd u rin g th e tim e in “ w h ich a p ro p e rlyfiled a p p lica tio n fo r S tate p o stc o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f

. . . i s p e n d i n g , ” 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) , n o td u r i n g th e t i me pr ece di ng the s t at e fi l i ng. W e have cons i s t ent l yaff i r m ed thi s r eadi ng of theM r . L es ke has notar gued thathe i s ent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng of the 3 li m it ati o n p eriod , an d , li k e the d istri ct co u rt , w e se e n o ex tr ao rdin ary c ir c u m s ta n c e s in th is c a s e m e ri tin g s u c h re lie f f ro m th e s ta tu to ry tim e b a r. See Mars h v. Soar es , 223 F. 3d 1217, 1220 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( “[T] hi s equi t abl e r emedy i s onl yavai l abl e w hen an i nm at e di l i gent l ypur s ues hi s cl ai m s and demonstr at es thatthe fa i l ur e t o t i m el yfi l e w as caus ed byextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s bey ond h is co n tr o l. ”). - 5 - s t atut e i n ourdeci s i ons hol di ng thata col l at er al pet i t i on fi l ed i n s t at e courtaft er the l i m i t at i on per i od has expi r ed does nots erve t o t ol l the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons fo r a fe d e ra l h a b e a s p e titio n . See , e. g. , Cla rkv . Ok la h o ma , 468 F. 3d 711, 714 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( “O nl ys t at e pet i t i ons forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef f i l ed w i thi n the o n e y ea r all o w ed b y[§ 2 2 4 4 (d)(1 )] w il l t o ll the s tatu te of li m it ati o n s. ”). W e a re bo un d by these ho l dings. 3 A c c o rd in g ly , w e a re o b lig e d to d e n yM r. L e sk e ’s r e q u e sts fo r C O A a n d to di s m i s s hi s appea l . W e gr anthi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris . M r. L e s k e ’s re q u e s t fo r a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g is m o o t. So or der ed.

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

N ei l M . G or s uch C i r cui tJ udge