T hi s or der i s not bi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce pt under t he doct r i nes of l aw of * th e c a s e , re s ju d ic a ta , a n d c o lla te ra l e s to p p e l. W e l i beral l y con st rue M r. W ager’ 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 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ), cer t . deni ed, 5 2 6 U . S . 1 0 5 2 (19 9 9 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d M r. W a g e r’ s re q u e s t fo r a C O A . 2 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nth Ci r c uit 

### N ove m b e r 28, 2006 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

DON ALD W AGER, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. KE VI N M I L YAR D; CO L OR ADO ATTO RN EY G ENER AL, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1265 ( D . C . N o. 06- Z - 65) ( C ol or ado)



### ORDER * B efor e M URP HY, S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui t Judg es. Do n al dW age r, a s t at e p ri s o n erap p ea ri n g pr o s e , seeks acertificate of 1 appea lability(COA) to c halleng e the district court’s denial of his petition for wr it of habea s corpus unde r 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Ex erc ising jurisdiction under 28 U .S.C. § 2 2253(c) (1), we see no ba sis for appe al and de nyMr. Wag er’ s application fora COA. Mr. Wag er ple d g uiltyto second de g ree murder and first deg ree assault, and on- 2-

Aug ust 25, 2000, he was se ntence d to six ty -eig ht y ear s in prison bya Colorado c ourt. Ne a rl ythr e e y e a rs la te r, onJuly23 , 2 00 3, Mr . Wa g e r f ile d an u ns uc c e ssf

ul postconvition mot ion in state trial court c halleng ing the validityof his sentenc e. On May5, 2005, the Colorado Court of Appe als aff irmed the trial c ourt’s dec ision, and on October17, 2005, the Colorado Supreme Court denied ce rtiorar i review . Mr. Wag er filed this § 2254 petition in t he district court in J anuary2006. The district court order ed him to show cause whyhis habea s corpus pe tition s hould not be dismised as time barre d. Afterconsidering Mr. Wag er’ s response to the showcause order , the c ou rtde te rm ine d th a t th e pe tit ionwa s b a rr e d b ythe on e y e a r t ime lim ita tio n p e ri odin 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). I ssuance of a COA is jurisdictional. Mi lle r- Elv . Co c kre ll, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). We mayissue a COA “ onlyif the applicant has made asubstantial showing of the de nia l of

ac on sti tut ion a l r ig ht. ” 28 U. S.C. § 2 25 3( c )( 2) . F ortho se c la ims dismiss ed on proc edura l gr ounds bythe district court, we will issue a COA onlywhen “jurists of re ason would find it debatable whethe r the pe tition s tate[d] a valid cla im of the de nia l of

ac on sti tut ion a l r ig ht andtha t ju ri sts of re a so n w ou ld f

indit d e ba table whetherthe district court wa s corr ect in its proce dural ruling .” Slack v . McD aniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Mr. Wag er a sserts his case is not ti me barred be cause he is a “ layman who lacke d the leg al training and knowledg e of the law” to discove r his leg al claim earlier. Ap lt. B r. a t 3. Th e habe a s ti me bar, ho we ve r, do e s n ot c ou nte nanc e un famil ia ri tywi th the law a s a justification for untimelyfiling. See 28 U. S.C. 22 44 (d ). Mr . Wa g e r a lso contends fe dera l habea s relief should be ac cessible unde r principles of “fe dera lism and- 3-

comity ” and the “due pr ocess and equal pr otection clause s” bec ause Colora do provides a long er, thre e-y earwindow for se eking state postconviction re lief. Aplt. Br . at 4. The on e -y e a r s ta tut orylim ita tio n o n s e e kin g habe a s r e lie f, ho we ve r, ha s n ot b e e n h e ld t o c on fl ic t w ith the se pr inc ipl e s a ndCon sti tut ion a l pr ote c tio ns e ve n w he re its a va ilabil ity is shorter in dura tion than for comparable state re medies. I t is not debatable that filing within Col orado’ s three- y earwindow does not over come the one -y earproce dural bar limit ing f

eder al habe as re lief. Fi n al l y , a p ri s o n ers ee k i n g ifp status must demonstrate financ ial inabilityto pay a ndthe e xiste nc e of

" are a so ne d, no nf

ri vo lou s a rg ume nt o n th e la w andthe fa c ts i n su pp ort of t he i ss ues rai sed on app eal ." M cI n to s h v . U

. S. P a r o le Co m m 'n , 115 F.3d 809, 812-13 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). B ecause Mr. Wag er has not made ashowing of g ood faith and the absenc e of f rivolity , we de nyhis moti on for leave to proc eed ifp . Be cause as Mr. Wag er pr ovides no deba table g rounds for ove rcoming the oney eartime limi t, we DENY his application for aCOA and his re quest to proce ed ifp. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephani e K . Sey m our C i r cui t J udge