T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, fo r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. W e l i beral l ycon strue M r. D em bry ’s pro se a p p lic a tio n . See Cum m i ngs v. 1 E van s, 1 6 1 F . 3 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 

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

### A p ril10,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 

### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

T E N T H C IRC U IT ANT HONY D E M BR Y, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. J AM E S AB BO T T , Wa r d e n ; J OHN SU T H E R S, T he A t t orneyG ener al of the St at e of Col or ado, R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1287 ( D . C. N o. 05 - CV - 10 71 - ZLW - CB S)

( D . C ol or ado)



### ORDER * B efor e M URP HY, S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

A nthonyD embry , a s t at e pr i s onerappea r i ng pro se , s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of 1 ap p ea labili ty(C O A ) t o ch all en g e the d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f h is ap p li ca ti o n fo r a w r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2254. E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on under28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 1 ), w e s e e n o b a s is fo r a p p e a l a n d d e n ya C O A . M r. D em bryw as conv i ct ed in C olor ado st at e cou rtof reckles s- 2-

endange r m ent , s exual as s aul ton a chi l d, and s exual as s aul ton a chi l d byone i n a pos i t i on of trus t . T he courti m pos ed s ent ence s of vary i ng l engths t o run concurr ent l y , the gr eat es tof w hi ch w as 20 y ear s t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . T he C o lo ra d o C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls a ffirm e d M r. D e m b ry ’s c o n v ictio n a n d th e sta te su p re m e c o u rt d e n ied h is p e tit io n fo r a w rit o f c e rtio ra ri. I n h i s § 2 2 5 4 h a b e a s p e t i t i o n , M r . De mb ryr a i s e d s i x c l a i ms wh i c h we gr oup as fol l ow s : ( 1) he w as deni ed hi s r i ghtt o pr es enta defens e w hen the tr i al courtdeni ed hi s m ot i on t o pi er ce the r ape s hi el d s t atut e, and w hen i thel d that t es t i m onyfr om hi s s uppr es s i on hear i ng coul d be us ed t o i m peac h anytr i al t es t i m onyr egar di ng hi s good char act er ; ( 2) he w as deni ed hi s r i ghtt o a fa i rtr i al w hen the courtr efus ed t o s everhi s att empt ed mansl aught ercountfr om the s exual a ss a u lt co u n ts, a c ted in a m a n n e r o v e rtlyp a rtial to th e v ictim , an d d e n ied h is chal l enge t o a j ur orforcaus e; and ( 3) hi s s ent ence vi ol at ed Appr endiv. New Jers ey , 530 U . S. 466 ( 2000) , and B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on , 5 4 2 U .S . 2 9 6 (2 0 0 4 ). A m agi s tr at e j udge r evi ew ed M r . D embry ’ s cl ai m s and, on M ay15, 2006, r ecomm ended thatt he di s tr i ctcour tdenyhi s appl i cat i on. M r . D embrys ubm i t t ed obj ect i ons t o the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on i n a r es pons e s i gned M ay 27. H ow ever , hi s obj ect i ons w er e fi l ed w i th the courton J une 9. T he di s tr i ct courtdet erm i ned thatt he r es pons e w as “unt i m el yas i tw as notfi l ed w i thi n t en d a y s o f th e M a y1 5 , 2 0 0 6 , R e c o m m e n d a tio n .” R e c ., v o l. I , d o c . 3 9 a t 1 . C ons i der i ng t he r ecomm endat i on on i t s m er i t s nonethel es s , the courtfound i tw as- 3-

“ful l ys uppor t ed byt he r ecor d and the appl i cabl e l aw . ” Id. at 2. T h e c o u rt acc ept ed and a dopt ed the r ecomm endat i on and deni ed M r . D embry ’ s appl i cat i on fo r h a b e a s re lie f. Id. U n d e r th e A n tit e rro rism a n d E ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a ltyA c t (A E D P A ), a s tate habea s pet i t i oner“has no abs ol ut e ent i t l ementt o appea l a di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on. 28 U . S. C . § 2253. ” Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 5 3 7 U .S . 3 2 2 , 3 3 5 (2 0 0 3 ). B efor e he mayappea l , he fi r s tm us tobt ai n a C O A . O therw i s e, w e have no ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e a p p e a l. S e e id . at336. A C O A w i l l i s s ue onl yi f pet i t i oner m akes “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 . ” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 483 ( 2000) . T o do s o, pet i t i onerm us ts how “that r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether. . . the pet i t i on s houl d have be en re so lv e d in a d iffe re n t m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Id . at484 ( ci t at i ons and quot at i on m a rk s o m itte d ). I n d e t e r mi n i n g wh e th e rt h e p e t i t i o n e rh a s ma d e th e r e q u i r e d s h o wi n g , we re v iew th e c laim s p re se n ted in h is § 2 2 5 4 p e tit io n a n d g e n e ra llya ss e ss th e ir m e ri t. S e e Mi l l e r - El , 537 U . S. at336. I n doi ng s o, w e “l ook t o the D i s tr i ct C ou rt ’s app l i cat i on of A E D P A t o p et i t i on er’ s const i tuti on al cl ai m s and ask w hetherthatr es ol ut i on w as debat abl e amongstj ur i s t s of r eas on. ” Id . W h ere p e tit io n e r’s fe d e ra l h a b e a s c laim s w e re a dju d ica ted o n th e m e rits in sta te c o u rt, w e w i l l gr antan appl i cat i on fora C O A “onl yw her e the s t at e courtdeci s i on w as- 4-

‘ contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of , cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned byt he Supr eme C our t. . . ’ orw as ‘ bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed i n the St at e courtpr ocee di ng. ’ 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) . ” D ocki ns v. Hi nes , 374 F. 3d 935, 9 3 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). F ir st, w e e x am ine w h ethe r M r. D em b ry ’s objecti o n s to the m ag istrate’s re c o m m e n d a tio n s w e re tim e ly. See Vega v. Su thers , 1 9 5 F . 3 d 5 7 3 , 5 7 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( “ [ A ] l i t i g a n t 's fa i l u r e t o fi l e t i m e l y o bj e c t i o n s t o a m a g i s tr a t e 's [r ecomm endat i on] w ai ves appel l at e r evi ew of both fac tual and l egal det erm i nat i ons . ”) . T he magi s tr at e j udge, i n hi s M ay15th r ecomm endat i on, advi s ed M r . D embrythathe had “ t en day s aft ers ervi ce of a copyof the R e c o m m e n d a tio n ” to file a n yw ri tte n o bje c tio n s . R e c ., v o l. I , d o c . 3 6 a t 2 6 -2 7 . See als o 2 8 U .S .C . § 6 3 6 (b )(1 ); Vega v. Suther s, 1 9 5 F . 3 d at 57 9 . M r. D em b ry m a ile d h is o bje c tio n to th e re c o m m e n d a tio n o n M a y2 7 , 2 0 0 6 , s ee R ec . , v o l. I, d o c . 3 8 a t 2 , b u t it w a s n o t file d w ith c o u rt u n til J u n e 9 , 2 0 0 6 . Id. T he di s tr i ct c o u rt c o n c lu d e d M r. D e m b ry o bje c tio n s w e re n o t file d w ith in th e 1 0 d a yp e ri o d . W e e v a lu a te th e tim e lin e ss o f M r. D e m b ry ’s o bjec tio n a c c o rd in g to th e d a te th e d o c u m e n t w a s s ig n e d a n d m a ile d , M a y2 7 th , a n d n o t th e d a te it w a s file d . See D u n n v . Wh ite , 8 8 0 F .2 d 1 1 8 8 , 1 1 9 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 9 ) (p e r c u ria m ); Mars h v. Soar es , 223 F. 3d 1217, 1218 n. 1 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . Fur therm or e, w e appl yFeder al R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re 5 , 6 , an d 7 2 w h en ev alua ti n g the tim eli n ess o f a p arty ’s- 5-

o bje c tio n to a m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s re c o m m e n d a tio n . See Theede v . U. S. D ep’ tof Labor , 1 7 2 F . 3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W h e r e th e p r o v i d e d p e r i o d o f t i me for subm i ssi on i s l ess than el even day s, as i ti s here, “i nterm ediat e S aturday s, Sunday , and l egal hol i day s s hal l be exc l uded i n the comput at i on. ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 6( a) . I n addi t i on, w her e s ervi ce i s m ade bym ai l , “[thr ee] day s ar e adde d aft ert he pr es cr i bed per i od w oul d otherw i s e expi r e. ” Id . at 6 (e ). M r. D e m b rym a iled h is obj ect i ons tw el ve day s aft erthe magi s tr at e i s s ued hi s r ecomm endat i on. T he i n t e r v e n i n g p e r i o d i n c l u d e d o n e S a tu r d a ya n d o n e S u n d a y . E x c l u d i n g t h e s e t wo w ee k en d d ay s an d co n side ri n g the a d d it ion al th ree d ayex tens ion , M r. D em b ry ’s obj ect i ons fel l s ecur el yw i thi n t he t en dayl i m i t . T hus , M r . D embryfi l ed a tim e lyo bjec tio n a n d p re se rv e d h is rig h t to a p p e a l to th is c o u rt. A l though M r . D embrys urpas s es t hi s t i m el i nes s hur dl e, aft err evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on, and the l aw , w e conc l ude the d istric t co u rt’s a p p lica tio n o f A E D P A to p e tit io n e r’s c laim s d id n o t cr e a te a re su lt that w o u ld b e d eb atab le am o n g st j u ri sts of rea so n . W e reject M r. D em b ry ’s appl i cat i on fora C O A fors ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons s etfor th byt he m agi s tr at e j udge i n hi s thor ough r eportand r ecomm endat i on. M r . D embrys eeks l eave t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris . B ec au se M r. D embryhas fai l ed t o demonstr at e the exi s t ence of “a r eas oned, nonfr i vol ous a rg u m e n t o n th e la w a n d th e fa c ts in s u p p o rto f th e is s u e s ra is e d o n a p p e a l,” McIn to s h v . U.S . P a r o le C o m m 'n , 115 F. 3d 809, 812- 13 ( 10th C i r . 1997) , w e deny- 6-

hi s r eques tt o pr ocee d ifp . A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY M r. D e m b ry’s re q u e s t fo r a C O A , DE NY h is m ot i on t o pr ocee d ifp , and D I SM I SS th e a p p e a l.

ENTERED FOR TH E CO UR T, St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge