Pro sep le a din g sare lib e ra lly c o n s tru e d . L e db e tte rv . Cityo f T o p eka, Ka n ., 318 1 F. 3d 1183, 1187 ( 10th C ir . 2003) . M yers ’ m oti on to procee d in fo rm a p a u p e rison appeal w a sgrante db yth edis tric t c o urt . 

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

### M ar c h 14,2007 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

__________________________ CA LV I N SH A N E M Y ER S, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. L OWEL L H. CL AR K, R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 4034 ( D . U t ah) ( D. Ct . No . 2 : 0 5 - CV- 3 6 7 - TC)

____________________________ OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY

AN D D I S M I S S I NG AP P L I CA T I ON B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. C al vi n M y er s , a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se and in fo rm a p a u p e ris , 1 fil ed a 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 p eti ti o n fo r w ri t of h ab ea s co rpu s. T h e d istri ct co u rt di s m i s s ed the pet i t i on as unt i m el y . M y er s then r eques t ed a c er t i fi cat e of- 2-

a p p e a lab ili ty(C O A ). B e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ru le o n th e re q u e st w ith in th ir ty d a y s , w e d e e m it d e n ie d . See 1 0 th C ir. R . 2 2 .1 (C ). M y e rs r e n e w s h is appl i cat i on fora C O A w i th thi s C our t . Forthe s ame r eas ons s etfor th bythe di s tr i ctcourt , w e D E N Y a C O A and di s m i s s hi s appl i cat i on. B ackgr ound T h e S tat e o f U tah c h arg ed M y ers w ith tw o co u n ts of ag g rav ated m u rde r, b o th ca p it al offe n ses, all eg ing M y ers h ad k il led h is girl frien d an d h er u n b o rn chi l d. M y er s ent er ed an unc ondi t i onal gui l typl ea t o one countof aggr avat ed m ur derand the tr i al courtdi s m i s s ed the s econd c ounti n acc or dance w i th a pl ea agr eement . O n February6, 1996, the tr i al cour ts ent ence d M y er s t o l i fe im p riso n m e n t w ith th e p o ss ib ili tyo f p a ro le. M y e rs d id n o t file a d ire c t ap p e a l. In Ju ly2 0 0 0 , M y e rs filed a p e tit io n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief in U tah sta te court . T he pet i t i on w as di s m i s s ed on the bas i s of s t at e pr ocedur al bar s and the c o u rt’s fin d in g M y e rs’ trial c o u n se l w a s n o t in e ffe c tiv e . M y e rs a p p e a led th is d e c is io n a n d th e U ta h S u p re m e C o u rt a ffir m e d th e d is m is s a l. M yers v. Stat e of Utah , 94 P. 3d 211 ( U t ah 2004) . M y er s then fi l ed a § 2254 pe t i t i on on M ay23, 2 0 0 5 , a s s e rt in g , in tera lia , hi s cl ai m s w er e notpr ocedur al l ybarr ed. T he di s tr i ct courtdi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on, concl udi ng M y er s ’ cl ai m s w er e unt i m el yunderthe A n ti terrori sm an d E ffec ti v e D ea th P en altyA ct of 1 9 9 6 (A E D P A ).- 3-

C e rtifica te o

f Ap p e a la b ili ty A C O A is a ju ri s d ic tio n a l p re -r e q u is ite to o u r r e v ie w . Mi l l er - E lv. C o c kre ll, 53 7 U . S . 32 2, 33 6 (200 3). W e w i l l i ssue a C O A on l yi f M y ers m akes a

“ s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). T o m a k e th is s h o w in g , h e m u st e sta b lish th a t “r e a so n a b le ju rists coul d debat e w hether. . . t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved [bythe di s tr i ct court ] i n a di ffe r entm annerort hatthe 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 . ” S la c kv . McD a n iel, 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I ns ofaras the di s tr i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed hi s habea s pet i t i on on p ro c e d u ra l g ro u n d s, M y e rs m u st d e m o n stra te b o th th a t “ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld 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 deni al of a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtand thatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Id . “W her e a pl ai n pr ocedur al b a r i s p re s e n t a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is c o rr e c t to in v o k e it to d is p o s e o f th e c a s e , a re a so n a b le ju rist c o u ld n o t co n c lu d e e ith e r th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in di s m i s s i ng the pet i t i on orthatthe pet i t i oners houl d be al l ow ed t o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Id. W e re v iew th e d istric t co u rt’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r c lea r e rro r a n d its l egal conclusi on s de novo . E ngl is h v. C ody, 2 4 1 F . 3 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). B eca us e M y er s ’ convi ct i on beca m e fi nal befor e the effec t i ve dat e of A E D PA , A pr i l 1996, M y er s w as r equi r ed t o fi l e hi s §2254 pet i t i on byA pr i l 1997,- 4-

u n le s s th e lim ita tio n p e ri o d w a s to lle d . G i bs on v. K l i nger , 232 F. 3d 799, 803 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (o n e -y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s d o e s n o t b e g in to ru n u n til A E D P A ' s effe cti v e d ate, A p ri l 24 , 1 9 9 6 , fo r co n v ict ion s b ec o m ing fin al be fo re thatdat e) . T he di s tr i ctcourtfound M y er s fi l ed hi s § 2254 pet i t i on m or e than one y earaft erthe effec t i ve dat e of A E D PA and ther e w as no j us t i fi cat i on for e q u ita b le to llin g . See Fis herv. G i bs on , 2 6 2 F .3 d 1 1 3 5 , 1 1 4 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). M y e rs a rg u e s h e filed w ith in o n e y e a r o f th e U tah c o u rt’s r e so lu tio n o f h is s t at e pos t - convi ct i on cl ai m s and, ther efor e, hi s pet i t i on w as t i m el yfi l ed. W hi l e a c laim fo r sta te p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief w ill g e n e ra llyto ll th e lim itatio n s p e rio d , it w ill n o t to ll a lim ita tio n p e ri o d w h ic h h a s a lr e a d ye x p ir e d . F is her , 262 F. 3d at 1142- 43. M y er s fi l ed hi s pos t - convi ct i on cl ai m s i n J ul y2000, aft erthe 1997 A E D P A s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s h a d a lr e a d ye x p ir e d . M y er s al s o fai l s t o pr es ents uffi ci entgr ounds forthe appl i cat i on of equi t abl e t ol l i ng, a r emedyappl i ed onl yi n “r ar e and e xcept i onal ci r cumst ance s . ” G i bs on , 2 3 2 F . 3 d at 80 8 (qu o tat ion s o m itted). C o n seq u en tl y , the d istri ct co u rt ’s d is m is s a l o rd e r i s n o t r e a s o n a b ly d e b a ta b le . Sl ack , 529 U . S. at484. M y er s has fa i l e d t o ma k e a s u ffi c i e n ts h o wi n g h e i s e n t i t l e d t o a CO A. We DE NY a CO A and di s m i s s t he appl i cat i on. E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge