UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ MIGUEL TRUJILLO, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. DWAYNE SANTISTEVAN; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Respondents - Appellees. No. 20-2074 (D.C. No. 2:19- CV-00730-JB-CG) (D. N.M.)

________________ _______________ ORDER

____________________ __________________ Before LUCERO , BACHARACH , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

______________________ _________________ Mr. Miguel Trujillo s ought federal habeas relief in district court, but the court denied relief. Mr. Trujillo wa nts to appeal, but he can do so only if a judge grants a certificate of ap pealability. 28 U.S. C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We decline to issue the certi ficate and dismiss the matter. The district court denied habeas relief, concluding that the action was untimely. Mr. Trujillo can challenge this conc lusion only if it is reasonably debatable. Laurson v. Leyba , 507 F.3d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 2007). In our vi ew, no jurist could reasonab ly question th e ruling on timeliness. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### November 3, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 For this habeas action, a one-year period of limitations exists. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Th is period or dinarily starts wh en the conviction became final. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Mr. Tr ujillo’s conviction became final upon the expiration of his time to seek direct review in state court. Rhine v. Weber , 182 F.3d 1153, 1155 (10th Cir. 1999). That deadline fell on December 8, 2003. On that day, the one-year pe riod of limitations began running. But the limitations peri od is tolled when the petition er seeks state habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). And Mr. Truj illo filed a st ate habeas petition on April 1, 2004, 115 days into the one-ye ar period of limitations. The limitations period wouldn’t re-sta rt until the state ha beas proceedings terminated. Id. Remarkably, the state habeas proceedings remained pending for roughly fourteen years, finally ending on July 13, 2018. At that point, Mr. Trujillo had 250 days left in which to file a federal habe as petition. The 250th day fell on March 20, 2019. 1 But Mr. Tru jillo waited until August 9, 2019 to file a federal habeas pe tition. By that time, his federal habeas petition wa s 142 days late. Mr. Trujillo argues that restrict ions on law-library access slowed his ability to prepare a stat e habeas petition. Despite these restrictions, Mr. Trujillo was able to f ile the state habeas petiti on. When he did so, the

1 The district court calculated the 250th day as Ma rch 21, 2019. But this one-day miscalcu lation does not aff ect the outcome.3 limitations period was tolle d, giving him ample time to seek federal habeas relief. So the restrictions in law-libr ary access thus didn’t trigger equitable tolling. See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). Once the state habeas proceedings ended, Mr. Trujillo does not suggest further restrictions on his access to a law library. 2 At that point, he had 250 days in which to file a federal hab eas petition. He nonetheless missed the limitations period by 142 days. In these circumstances, no reasonable jurist could regard the district court’s ruling as reasonably deba table. So we deny a certif icate of appealability and dismiss the matter. Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

2 Mr. Trujillo also refers to defici encies on the part of two attorneys (Mr. Daniel Salazar and Mr. Geoffrey Scovil) fr om 2005 to 2007. But the limitations period was already toll ed from 2005 to 2007 because of the pendency of the state habeas proceedings.