UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ DANNY BARLOR, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. ROBERT PATTON; TRACY ELLIS; OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents - Appellees. No. 17-6205 (D.C. No. 5:17- CV-00576-W) (W.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFIC ATE OF APPEALABILITY *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , O’BRIEN , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Danny Barlor, an Oklahoma state prisone r, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s de nial of his 28 U.S.C § 2241 habeas petition. We deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.
I Barlor has been incarcerated since 1980. In 1985, he escaped from prison and was recaptured. See Barlor v. Patton, No. CIV-15-66-D, 2016 WL 1273246, at *1 (W.D. Okla., Mar. 31, 2016) (unpublishe d). In 1991, Barlor received a disciplinary write-up for attempted escape. He alleges that the only ev idence presented at his disciplinary hearing

* This order is not binding precedent, ex cept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and colla teral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 16, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 on the attempted escape allegation was the te stimony of a confidential informant. As a result of this write-up, Barlor was demoted to the lowest possible cl ass level used by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (“ODOC”) for calculating good time credits. See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57, § 138. Barlor subsequently received le vel promotions for good behavior. In 1993, he attained the highest class leve l for purposes of earning credits. In April of 2003, an auditor at the private prison at which Barlor was housed applied an ODOC policy promulgated in 1997 to determine Barlor’s cred it level and classification. Barlor’s class level was reduced and ten points were added to his score. In 2004, Barlor unsuccessfully sought mandamus relief in state court to re instate his credits and restore his previous level. See Barlor v. Patt on, 681 F. App’x 6 74, 676 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished). Barlor also filed a civil rights complaint in federal district court in 2005, which was dismissed. In 2015, Barlor filed another civil right s action alleging that ODOC’s 1985, 1991, and 2003 actions violated his rights under th e Ex Post Facto Clause and the Due Process Clause, and constituted double jeopardy. Id. Treating Barlor’s action as a challenge to the execution of his sentence unde r § 2241, the district court he ld that Barlor’s request to restore his time credits was time-barred. Id. at 678. It further rejected Barlor’s due process and ex post facto clai ms for declaratory relief and da mages on the merits. Id. We affirmed the dismissal of Barlor’s due process and ex post facto claims on direct appeal. Id. at 678-79. We noted that Barlor did not attempt to appeal the dismissal of his challenge to the execution of his senten ce in his opening brief and thus we did not3 consider that issue. Id. at 677 n.4. Howeve r, we construed a document filed in this court as a misdirected § 2241 petition and transferred it to the district court for adjudication. Id. The district court dismissed that pe tition as untimely and ba rred by res judicata. Barlor now seeks a COA to appeal that dismissal.
II A state prisoner seeking to appeal the deni al of § 2241 relief must obtain a COA. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 867 (10th Cir. 2000). We may only issue a COA if Barlor shows “that reasonable jurists coul d debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encour agement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotation omitted). Reasonable jurists could not dispute the di strict court’s resolution of Barlor’s claim. Barlor was required to file a habeas petition within one year of the date on which the factual predicate of his claims could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d )(1)(D); see Dulworth v. Evan s, 442 F.3d 1265, 1268 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that § 2244 applies to state prisoners’ § 2241 claims). As we explained in Barlor’s previous appeal, he was aware of the factual predicate of his claims by 2004 at the latest. Barlo r, 681 F. App’x at 678. Barlor presents no argument to the contrary on appeal. 1

1 Because we affirm the di strict court’s ruling as to timeliness, we need not consider its alternative ruli ng as to res judicata.4 III
We DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal. Barlor’s mo tion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED

.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge