FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT NOV 29 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16799 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 6 0 3 2 3 - C V- UU B H E L D R A D O Z U L U A G A , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S E C R E T A R Y F O R T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 29, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T he que s t i on i n thi s appe a l , on w hi c h w e gr a nt e d ac e r t i f i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty , i s w he the ra pe t i t i on f orhabe a s c orpus w a s e rr one ous l y di s m i s s e d by2

the di s tr i c tc our ta s ba rr e d by the one - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons . H e l dr a do Z ul ua ga , aF l or i das t a t e pr i s one r , f i l e d pr o s e a pe t i t i on f

ora w r i tof

habe a s c orpus i n federa l di stri ctcourt . S ee 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4. A pet i t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus m ustbe fi l ed w i thi n a ye araf t erthe pet i t i on er ’ s c on vi ct i on becom es fi nal

“ by the concl usi on of di re ctre vi ew or the expi ra t i on of the t i m e f or se eki ng such r e vi e w . ” I d. § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) . Z ul ua gaappe a l e d hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e t o a F l or i daappe l l a t e c our t , w hi c h di s m i s s e d hi s appe a l , buthe di d nots e e k r e vi e w of the di s m i s s a l i n e i the rthe S upr e m e C our tof F l or i daorthe S upr e m e C our tof the U n i t ed S t at es. T h e d i stri ctco u rtad o p t ed a rep o rtan d reco m m en d at i o n b y a m agi stra t e j ud ge thatconcl ud ed thatZ ul uaga’ s pet i t i on shou l d b e di sm i ss ed as un t i m el y. N ei ther the di stri ctcourtno r the m agi stra t e j ud ge consi dere d w hether Z ul uaga w as ent i t l ed t o the addi t i on al t i m e i n w hi ch he coul d h ave s ou gh tre vi ew o f th e d is m is s a l b y th e F lo r id aap p e lla te c o u r t. B e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld ha ve c ons i de r e d w he the rZ ul ua ga w a s e nt i t l e d t o the 90- da y pe r i od f ors e e ki ng r e vi e w i n the S upr e m e C our tof the U ni t e d S t a t e s , w e va c a t e the or de rof the d is tr ic t c o u r t a n d r e m a n d f o rf u r th e rp r o c e e d in g s . I . B AC KG RO UN D I n A u g u s t 1 9 9 4 , Z u lu a g ap le a d e d g u ilty , a n d w h e n h e d id n o t ap p e a ra t h is s e nt e nc i ng on D e c e m be r2, 1994, he w a s s e nt e nc e d i n abs e nt i a . I n 1998, Z ul ua ga3

w as re -app re hend ed, and h e app ea re d i n cou rton M ay29 , 19 98 , w here he w as i nf orm e d of the s e nt e nc e tha tha d be e n i m pos e d i n 1994 a nd i nc a r c e r a t e d. O n J une 29, 1998, Z ul ua gaappe a l e d hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e , thr ough c ouns e l , t o a F l or i daD i s tr i c tC our tof A ppe a l . T he appe a l w a s di s m i s s e d on J a nua ry 25, 2000, a nd Z ul ua gadi d nots e e k r e vi e w of the di s m i s s a l i n the S upr e m e C our tof F l or i da o r th e S u p rem e C o u rto f th e U n i t ed S t at es. Z ul ua gar e pr e s e nt s tha the the n f i l e d s e ve r a l m ot i ons f

orpos t c onvi c t i on r e l i e f i n F l or i datr i a l c our t . Z ul ua gac ont e nds tha ton M a y 25, 2000, he f i l e d a m ot i on for post conv i ct i on re l i ef un der R ul e 3. 85 0 o f the F l ori da R ul es of C ri m i nal P r oc e dur e . U l t i m a t e l y , the tr i a l c our tde ni e d the m ot i on, a F l or i daD i s tr i c tC our tof A p p e a l a f

f irm e d th e d e n ia l, a n d a m a n d a te is s u e d f r o m th e ap p e lla te c o u r t o n A p r il 21, 2003. Z ul ua gac ont e nds tha ton J a nua ry 7, 2004, he f i l e d am ot i on f

or po st conv i ct i on re l i ef

un der R ul e 3. 80 0 o f the F l ori da R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re , w hi ch al so w as deni ed by the tri al court . A F l ori da D i stri ctC ou rtof A pp ea l a f f i rm e d the de ni a l a nd i s s ue d am a nda t e on M a y 21, 2004. F i na l l y , Z ul ua ga c ont e nds tha ton A pr i l 26, 2004, be f or e the m a nda t e i s s ue d on hi s R ul e 3. 800 m ot i on , he fi l ed a s ec on d m ot i on for post conv i ct i on re l i ef un der R ul e 3. 85 0. T hat m ot i on w as deni ed by the tri al court , the deni al w as af fi rm ed, and a m andat e i ss ued fr om the appel l at e c ou rton Ja nu ary 7, 20 05 . N ei ther Z ul uaga no r the S ec re t ary has4

offe re d i nt o the re cord any docum ent s thatsupp ortthese cont ent i on s by Z ul uaga, b u tth e S ecret ary al so h as n o td en i ed Z u l u ag a’ s co n t en t i o n s. O n F e brua ry 17, 2005, Z ul ua gaf i l e d hi s pe t i t i on f

ora w r i tof

habe a s c orpus in f e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e f e rr e d th e p e titio n to a m a g is tr a te ju d g e f o ra r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a tio n . T h e S e c r e ta ry a r g u e d to th e m a g is tr a te j u d g e th a tZu l u a g a ’ s p e t i t i o n w a s u n t i me l y , b e c a u s e Zu l u a g a ’ s c o n v i c t i o n b e c a me f in a l 3 0 d a y s a f

te rZ u lu a g aw a s s e n te n c e d in ab s e n tiao n D e c e m b e r2 , 1 9 9 4 . Z ul ua gac ount e r e d tha thi s pe t i t i on w a s t i m e l y , be c a us e hi s c onvi c t i on di d not be c om e f i na l unt i l a f

t e rhe w a s r e - appr e he nde d i n 1998. T h e m ag istrate ju d g e r ec o m m en d ed to th e d istrict co u rt th at Z u lu ag a’s pet i t i on be di sm i ss ed as un t i m el y. T he m agi stra t e j ud ge re as on ed that , even un der Z ul ua ga ’ s t i m e l i ne , Z ul ua ga ’ s c onvi c t i on be c a m e f i na l on J a nua ry 25, 2000, the da t e on w hi c h Z ul ua ga ’ s di r e c tappe a l w a s di s m i s s e d, a nd the appl i c abl e t ol l i ng w a s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o r e nde rt i m e l y Z ul ua ga ’ s pe t i t i on of F e brua ry 17, 2005. T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge c onc l ude d tha the ne e d notde f i ni t i ve l y de t e rm i ne the da t e on w h ic h Z u lu a g a ’s c o n v ic tio n b e c a m e f in a l b u t a s s u m e d , f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

h is d ec isio n , th at Z u lu ag a’s c o n v icti o n b ec am e f in al o n th e d ate o n w h ich Z u lu ag a’s di re ctappeal w as di sm i ss ed. T he m agi stra t e j ud ge di d n otconsi der w hether Z ul uaga w as ent i t l ed t o the addi t i on al t i m e i n w hi ch he coul d h ave s ou gh tre vi ew5

o f th e d is m is s a l o f

h is d ir e c t ap p e a l. Z u lu a g ao b

je c te d to th e r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a tio n o f th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e . H e a s s e r t e d tha ta c onvi c t i on or di na r i l y doe s notbe c om e f i na l unt i l the t i m e f

or se eki ng re vi ew fr om the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es expi re s. T he di stri ct courtadop t ed the re po rtand recom m endat i on of the m agi stra t e j ud ge ov er Z ul uaga’ s obj ec t i on . W e gra nt ed a c ert i fi ca t e of app ea l abi l i ty on o ne i ss ue:

“ [ w ] he the rthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by di s m i s s i ng appe l l a nt ’ s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 p e t i t i o n a s b a rr e d b y 2 8 U. S. C. § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ’ s o n e - y e a rs t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s ?” I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r evi ew de no vo the di sm i ss al of a pet i t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus as un t i m el y. N i x v . S ec ’ y f or the D ept . of C orr. , 39 3 F . 3d 12 35 , 12 36 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). I I I . DI S CUS S I ON A l though Z ul ua gade vot e s ne a r l y a l l of hi s br i e f t o am a tt e rout s i de the sc op e of the t i m el i ness i ss ue thatw e c ert i fi ed for app ea l , w e do n otconcl ud e that Z ul ua gaha s aba ndone d the t i m e l i ne s s i s s ue . C f . G r e e nbr i a r , L t d. v. C i ty of A l abas t er , 88 1 F . 2d 15 70 , 15 73 n. 6 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ) ( di sc ussi ng w ai ver of i ss ues n o t arg u ed in b rief

s) . Z u lu ag a d o es as se rt in h is b rief th at “th e d istrict co u rt’s a na l y s i s of

hi s t i m e f

r a m e w a s i nc orr e c t , ” a nd w e c ons true pr o s e pl e a di ngs6

l i be r a l l y , H ughe s v. L ott , 350 F . 3d 1157, 1160 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . I n a ddi t i on, the S ec re t ary has no tar gu ed thatZ ul uaga abando ned the t i m el i ness i ss ue. Z ul uaga argues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d w hen i tdet erm i ned that Z u lu a g a ’s p e titio n w a s u n tim e ly . T h e S e c r e ta ry c o u n te r s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id note rr , be c a us e Z ul ua ga ’ s pe t i t i on w a s f i l e d a f t e rthe one - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons ha d e xpi r e d. N e i the rpa r ty a ddr e s s e d i n the i rbr i e f s the f a i l ur e of the d i s tr i c tc o u r tt o c o n s i d e rth e 9 0 - d a y p e r i o d f o rs e e k i n g r e v i e w i n th e Su p r e me C o u rto f th e U n i t ed S t at es. U n d e rth e A n tite rr o r is m a n d E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t o f 1 9 9 6 , as ta te pr i s one r ’ s pe t i t i on f

ora w r i tof

habe a s c orpus i s gove rne d by a one - y e a rs t a tut e of li m it atio n s. T h at ye arco m m en ce s in m o st ca se s o n th e d ate th e p riso n er ’s c onvi c t i on be c om e s f

i na l “ bythe c onc l us i on of di r e c tr e vi e w orthe e xpi r a t i on of the t i m e f

ors e e ki ng s uc h r e vi e w . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) . T he l i m i t a t i ons p e r io d is to lle d f

o r“[ t]h e tim e d u r in g w h ic h a p r o p e r ly f ile d ap p lic a tio n f

o rS ta te p o s t- c o n v ic tio n . . . r e v ie w w ith r e s p e c t to th e p e r tin e n t ju d g m e n t . . . is p e n d in g .” Id. § 2 24 4(d)(2). A s Z ul ua ganot e d i n hi s obj e c t i ons t o the r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on of the m a gi s tr a t e j udge , a c onvi c t i on m i ghtnotbe c om e f i na l unt i l the e xpi r a t i on of the t i m e pe r i od f

ors e e ki ng r e vi e w i n the S upr e m e C ourtof the U ni t e d S t a t e s . T he7

S upr e m e C our tof

the U ni t e d S t a t e s m a y gr a nta w r i tof c e r t i or a r i t o r e vi e w the fi nal j ud gm entof the “ hi gh es tcourtof a S t at e i n w hi ch a deci si on coul d b e had. ” Id . § 1 2 5 7 (a). A d efen d an th as 9 0 d ays fro m th e j u d g m en to f th e st at e co u rto f l ast re sortt o fi l e apet i t i on for aw ri tof ce rt i orar i i n the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es . U . S . S up . C t . R . 13 . 1. “ In ou r dec i si on s r egar di ng the t i m el i ness of habeas pet i t i on s f

i l ed by F l ori da pri soners , w e have re qu i re d the i ncl usi on of the 90 -day peri od for s ee ki ng di re ctre vi ew i n the S up re m e C ou rtw henever the pri soner s oughtr e vi e w i n the hi ghe s tc our tof F l or i dai n w hi c h di r e c tr e vi e w c oul d ha ve be e n ha d. ” P ugh v. S m i th, 465 F . 3d 1295, __, N os . 05- 12100, 05- 13021, s l i p op. at8 (11 th C i r. S ept . 29 , 20 06 ) ( di sc ussi ng N i x, 39 3 F . 3d 12 35 , and B on d v . M oo re , 3 0 9 F .3 d 7 7 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . T he m agi stra t e j ud ge and the di stri ctcourtas sum ed, w i tho utdeci di ng , that Z ul uaga’ s c on vi ct i on beca m e f i nal on the dat e on w hi ch Z ul uaga’ s di re ctappeal w a s di s m i s s e d, butthe y di d notc ons i de rw he the rZ ul ua gaw a s e nt i t l e d t o the 90- d a y p e r i o d f

o rs e e k i n g r e v i e w i n th e S u p r e m e C o u r to f th e Un i t e d S t a t e s . I f

we t a ke a s true Z ul ua ga ’ s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons r e ga r di ng hi s pos t c onvi c t i on m ot i ons , the 9 0 -d ay p er io d w o u ldaf fe ct th e tim elin es s o f Z u lu ag a’s p etit io n . Z u lu ag a’s c o n v ic tio n w o u ld n o t h a v e b e c o m e f in a l u n til A p r il 2 4 , 2 0 0 0 , 9 0 d a y s a f te rh is di r e c tappe a l w a s di s m i s s e d. T he one - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons w oul d ha ve8

c om m e nc e d on tha tda t e a nd run f or30 da y s unt i l M a y 25, 2000, w he n Z ul ua ga f i l e d hi s f i r s tR ul e 3. 800 m ot i on f orpos t c onvi c t i on r e l i e f . T he l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od w ou l d h ave been t ol l ed un t i l A pri l 21 , 20 03 , w hen the F l ori da appel l at e c ou rt i s s ue d the m a nda t e a f

f i rm i ng the de ni a l of

Z ul ua ga ’ s m ot i on. T he l i m i t a t i ons peri od w ou l d then h ave run for 260 days un t i l Ja nu ary 7, 20 04 , w hen Z ul uaga fi l ed hi s R ul e 3. 850 m ot i on f orpos t c onvi c t i on r e l i e f . B e c a us e Z ul ua gaf

i l e d hi s s e c ond R ul e 3. 800 m ot i on w hi l e hi s R ul e 3. 850 m ot i on w a s pe ndi ng, the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od w oul d ha ve be e n t ol l e d unt i l J a nua ry 7, 2005, w he n the m a nda t e s f orboth m ot i ons h a d b e e n is s u e d . T h e lim ita tio n s p e r io d w o u ld th e n h a v e ru n f o r4 0 d a y s u n til F ebruary17 , 20 05 , w hen Z ul uaga fi l ed i n federa l di stri ctcourthi s pet i t i on for a w r it o f h ab e a s c o rp u s . O n ly 3 3 0 d a y s o f th e o n e - y e a rlim ita tio n s p e r io d w o u ld h a v e e lap s e d , a n d Z u lu a g a ’s p e titio n w o u ld h a v e b e e n tim e ly f ile d . W e r e m a nd thi s m a tt e rt o the di s tr i c tc our tf orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs . T he di s tr i c tc our tm us tde c i de w he the rZ ul ua gaw a s e nt i t l e d t o the 90- da y pe r i od f or se eki ng re vi ew i n the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es . T he di stri ctcourtm ay al so need t o d et erm i ne other i ss ues i tprevi ou sl y l ef tun re sol ved, such as w hether Z ul uaga’ s c on t ent i on s r egar di ng hi s post conv i ct i on m ot i on s a re true a nd w hether th e S ecret ary h as co rrect l y arg u ed th atZ u l u ag a’ s co n v i ct i o n b ecam e fi n al 3 0 d ays a f t e rZ ul ua gaw a s s e nt e nc e d i n abs e nt i aon D e c e m be r2, 1994.9 I V . CONCL US I ON T h e o rd er o f th e d i stri ctco u rti s VA C A TED , a n d th is m a tte ris R EM A N D ED f

orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on.