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

### A u gu s t9,2006 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 M E R R IL L A N D R E W S ,

Pet i t i oner - A ppel l ant , N o. 06- 3108 v . ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 3 4 8 0 - S AC) STATE OF K AN SAS; PHI L KLI NE, A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f

K a n s a s , (D . K a n .) R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. OR DER B efor e K E L L Y , M c K A Y , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. In 1 9 7 8 , A p p e lla n t w a s c o n v ic te d in K a n s a s s ta te c o u rt o f fe lo n ym u rd e r. A tt r i al , t he s t at e ar gued thatA ppel l ant , al ong w i th tw o unknow n per s ons , ki l l ed a w o m a n in th e c o u rse o f ro b b in g h e r h o m e . A p p e llan t w a s p a ro led in 1 9 9 9 b u t is now i ncar cer at ed i n a fe der al peni t ent i aryforr obbi ng a cr edi tuni on i n 2002. T he K ans as D epartm entof C or r ect i ons i s s ued a pa r ol e vi ol at i on w arr antforA ppel l ant fo llo w in g th e c re d it u n io n ro b b e ry . A p p e llan t h a s c o n sis ten tlym a in tain e d h is i nnocenc e i n t he 1978 ca s e, and, i n thi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 pet i t i on, he cha l l enges t he s t at e convi ct i on. T o o vercom e the o ne-y ear s t atute of l i m i t at i on s on § 22 54 peti t i on s, A ppel l antar gues t hathe r ece nt l ydi s cover ed evi dence s uppor t i ng hi s cl ai m of- 2-

a c tu a l in n o c e n c e . T h e h a b e a s s tatu to rysc h e m e a llo w s fo r la te- filed p e tit io n s if t he pet i t i on i s fi l ed one y earfr om “the dat e on w hi ch the fa ctual pr edi cat e of the cl ai m orcl ai m s pr es ent ed coul d have be en di s cover ed thr ough the exe r ci s e of due di l i gence . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( D ) . T he bur den t o demonstr at e due di l i gence th a t w o u ld to ll th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s is o n th e A p p e lla n t. 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 ), cer t . deni ed , 531 U . S. 1194 ( 2001) (“ [ E q u itab le to lli n g ] is o n lya v a ilab le w h e n a n in m a te d ili g e n tlyp u rsu e s h is cl ai m s and demonstr at es t hatt he fa i l ur e t o t i m el yfi l e w as caus ed by e 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.” ). In 2 0 0 2 , A p p ell an t disco v ere d that an ind ividu al claim ed to h av e h ea rd anotherper s on admi tt o comm i t t i ng the murde rforw hi ch A ppel l antw as convi ct ed. A ppel l antal s o di s cover ed thatthe per s on w ho al l egedl yconfe s s ed had a b r o t h e rwh o o wn e d a c a rs i mi l a rt o th e c a rs e e n o u t s i d e th e 1 9 7 8 v i c t i m’ s h o me dur i ng t he r obbery . I n February2003, A ppel l antfi l ed forr el i ef f r om the 1978 convi ct i on i n K ans as s t at e courtbas ed on the new evi dence , w hi ch w as deni ed. I n di s m i s s i ng A ppel l ant ’ s § 2254 pet i t i on, the di s tr i ctcourtfound that A ppel l antfai l ed t o demonstr at e anyextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s thatpr event ed hi m fr om m aki ng a t i m el yfi l i ng. O r der , 3 ( D . K an. M ar . 10, 2006) . I n addi t i on, t he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed that , w hen maki ng a cl ai m of ac tual i nnocenc e, A ppel l ant “musts how t hat‘ i ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatno r eas onabl e j ur orw oul d have found [A ppel l ant ] gui l t ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ’ ” Id. at4 ( quot i ng Schl up v.- 3-

D e lo , 5 1 3 U .S . 2 9 8 , 3 2 7 (1 9 9 5 )). T h e d istric t co u rt w e n t o n to n o te th a t ev e n if A ppel l antes t abl i s hed the trut h of the al l eged c onfes s i on and the ow ner s hi p of the s i m i l arcar , t hes e fa ct s ar e noti ncons i s t entw i th the governm ent ’ s theoryof the c a s e th a t A p p e lla n t a n d tw o o th e rs c o m m itte d th e c ri m e . Id. ( ci t i ng A ndr ew s v. S ta te , N o. 92, 024, 2005 W L 823913, at*2 ( K an. C t . A pp. A pr . 8, 2005) ) . T he d istri ct co u rtd id n o t gran t A p p ell an t a ce rt ifi ca te of ap p ea labili ty(“C O A ”). T o obt ai n a C O A , A ppel l antm us tm ake 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) ( 2) . T o do s o, A ppel l ant m us tdemonstr at e “thatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether( or , forthat m at t er , agr ee that ) t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm anneror t hatt he i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d f u rt h e r.” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). W e h av e c are fu ll yrev iew ed A p p ell an t’ s b ri ef, the d istri ct co u rt ’s d isp o sitio n , an d th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l. N o th in g in th e fa c ts, th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l, orA ppel l ant ’ s fi l i ng r ai s es an i s s ue w hi ch meet s ours t andar d forthe gr antof a C O A . F o r su b sta n tiallyth e sa m e re a so n s s e t fo rth b yth e d istric t co u rt in its M a rc h 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , o rd e r, w e c a n n o t sa y“ th a t re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld d e b a te w hether( or , fort hatm at t er , agr ee that ) the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n- 4-

a di ffe r entm anner . ” Id. W e , th e re fo re , DE NY P e t i t i o n e r ’ s r e q u e s tfo ra CO A and D I SM I SS th e a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge