Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40484 Su m m ar y Cal endar
LE LA ND D BOOTHE Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant
v. NAT HANI ELQUA RT ER M AN, DI RE CT OR , T EXAS DE P AR T M ENTOF CR I M I NALJ US T I CE , C OR RE CT I ONA L I NS T I T UT I ONS DIVI S I ON R espon den t - A pp el l ee A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 06- C V
- 221 B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H AM , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IAM: * Lel and D . B oo t he, Texas pr i so ner# 76 6 9 55, pr oc ee di ng pro se and i n f o r ma p a u p er is , a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t o r d e rf i n d in gh im in e lig ib le fo re q u ita b le t ol l i n g du e t o m en t ali n com petence an d d i sm i ssi n g h i s f ederalha be a s pet i t i on as t i m e - ba r r e d. H e a l s o m o ve s f o ra ppo i nt m en tof co uns e lo n a ppe ala nd c o n te n d s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e db yd e n y in gh is m o tio n fo ra p p e lla te co u n s e l. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D April15, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40484

2 O n 11 O c t obe r1996, B oo t he pl eade d gui l t y t o f i r st - degr eem urde rand w as s e n te n c e dto 5 0 y e a r s o f im p r is o n m e n t. H e d idn o t file a n a p p e a l. B oo t he’ s Sept em ber2005 st at e habeas pet i t i on w as deni ed i n M ar c h 2006. O n 1 4 A p r il 2 0 0 6 , B o o th e fi l e d a 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 a p p lic a tio n , ch a lle n g in gh is c onvi c t i on and c ont endi ng t he appli c at i on w as nott i m e- bar r ed be c ausehe had b e e n m e n ta llyin c o m p e te n t fo rn in e y e a r s fo llo w in gh is co n v ic tio n . Th e St at e m ove d f

or su m m a r y j udgm ent , m ai nt ai ni ng t hatB oo t h w as c om pet entt o pur sue hi s l egalr em edi es , a t a m i ni m um , i n 2003. Coun se lw as ap po i nt e d t o r e pr e s e ntBoo t he f o rdi s c o ve r y andan e vi de nt i ary he ar i ng. The di st ri ctcourtf

ou n d B oot h e w as able t o f i l e a h abea s pet i t i on i n 200 3, concl u ded B o o th e h a dfa ile dto s h o w h is e n tit le m e n t to e q u ita b le t o llin g , a n dd is m is s e dh is § 225 4 ap pl i cat i on as t i m e- barred. Th e courtgran t ed B o o th e a c ert if i cat e of ap pea l abili t y regardi n g t h e equ i t able- t ol l i n g i ssue. Boo t he ’ s m o t i o n f

o ra ppo i nt m e nto f

a ppe l l at e c o uns e li s de ni e d. Boo t he w as a ppo i nt e d c o uns e li n t he di s t r i c tc o ur tpur s uantt o Rul e s 6 ( a) a nd 8 (c ) o f t he R u l es G overning S ect i on 225 4 C ases. B oot h e conte n ds 18 U . S . C . § 3006 A (c) r e quir e s t hi s a pp o i nt m e ntt o c o nt i nue duri ng t he pe nde nc y o f hi s a ppe al . Boo t he c i t es no aut hor i t y hol di ng t he durat i on pro vi si on of § 3006A (c ) appl i c abl e t o a n a p p oin tm en t un d er R u l es 6 (a) a n d8 (c) . P ersu a sive a u th ority s u gg ests i t is no t. S ee Mi ran d a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 4 5 5 F . 2 d4 0 2 , 4 0 3
- 0 5 ( 2dCir . 1 9 7 2 ) ( 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 5 ca s e ). In an y even t , becau se th e courtorders ap poi n t i n g B oot h e coun selli m i t ed t h e a p p o i n t me n tt o c o n d u c t i n gd i s c o v e r y , b r i e f i n gt h e e q u i t a b l e - t o l l i n gc l a i m, an d representi n g B oot h e at t h e evi den t i ary h eari n g, t h e app oi n t m en tof coun sel w a s te r m in a te db yco u r t o r d e ru p o n c o m p le tio no f th o s e ta s k s . S eeC RIMI NAL J US T I CE P LAN F OR T HE S OUT HERN D I S TR I CT OF T EXAS , § VI I ( E) . N o rdo“t he in te r e s ts o f ju s tic e ” r e q u ir e a p p o in tm e n to f a p p e lla te co u n s e l inth is ca s e . S ee S chw an d er v. B lackb u rn , 750 F. 2d 494, 502 ( 5t h C i r . 1985) . ( H i s m ot i on f oranN o. 08- 40484

3 expe di t ed r ul i ng on h i s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof appel l at e c ounse li s deni ed as m o o t.)B oo th e h a s a l so fail edto de m on strate the distri ct cou rt ab u sedits d is c r e tio n b yd e n y i n gh is m o tio n fo ra p p o in tm e n t o f a p p e lla te co u n s e l. S ee Un itedS ta tes v . Nich o ls , 30 F. 3d 35, 36 ( 5t h C i r . 1994) ( 28 U . S. C . § 2255 p ro ce e d in g). Boo t he c o nt e nds hi s m e nt ali nc o m pe t e nc y dur i ng hi s i nc ar c e r at i o n a tt he Je s t e rIV uni tpr e ve nt e d hi m f r o m pur s ui ng hi s l e ga lri ght s , t he r e byw ar r ant i ng e quit ab l e t o l l i ng. H e co nt e nds t he di s t r i c tco ur ter r e d i n cr e dit i ng t he t e s t i m o ny o f bi as e d wi t ne s s e s c all e d b y t he r e s po nde nta nd b y do w npl ay i ng t he t e s t i m o ny by B oot h e’ s expertw i t n ess. W e r e vi ew t he de ni alo f e quit ab l e t o l l i ng f

o ra bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n a nd the fa c tu a l fin d in g s u n d e r ly in gs u c h a d e c i s io n fo rcle a re r r o r . How landv. Q uar t e r m an , 5 0 7 F .3 d8 4 0 , 8 4 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). B o o th e p r o v id e s n o th in ginh is b ri ef t o su p p ort h i s con ten ti on tha t th e d i stri ct cou rt erredi n its cred ib i l i ty determ i n ati on . A ccor di n gl y, B oot h e ha s fai l ed to dem o n strat e cl ear err or r e g a r d in gth is is s u e . Se eBowerv . Q uar t e r m an , 497 F . 3d459 , 46 6 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). In t h e li gh tof that credibl e test i m on y, B oot h e fail ed t o m eethi s burd en of sh ow i n g h i s m en tal con d i ti o n p r e v e n tedh i m f rom pu rsu i n g h i s l eg a lri gh ts d u r in g2 0 0 3 . S ee Ph ill ip s v . D o n n elly , 2 1 6 F .3 d5 0 8 , 5 1 1 (5 th C ir .), m od if i ed on r e h ’g , 2 2 3 F .3 d7 9 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); Fi sher v. Joh n son , 17 4 F . 3 d71 0 , 71 5 -16 ( 5 th C ir . 199 9) . A ccor di n gl y, becau se th e di st ri ctcourtdi d n otabu se it s di scr et i on byr e f us i ng t o i nvo ke e quit ab l e t o l l i ng, t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s j udg m e ntdi s m i s s i ng Boo t he ’ s § 2 25 4 ap pli c at i o n a s b ar r e d b y l i m i t at i o ns i s a f f i r m e d. M OT I ONS DE NI ED ; J UDGMENT A F F I RMED.