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

### D e c e m b e r20,2006 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 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. T E RE S A VAL E NC I A, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 4159 ( D . C . N os . 06- C V - 328- PG C and D. C. No . 0 3 - CR- 2 0 1 - P GC)

( D . U t ah)

OR DER DENYI NG CERTI FI CATE OF APPE ALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. T er es a V al enci a, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of a p p e a l a b i l i ty( “ COA” ) t o a p p e a l th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f h e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2255 habea s pet i t i on. Fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons s etfor th bythe di s tr i ct court , w e DE NY a C O A and D I SM I SS . O n A ugus t19, 2003, V al enci a w as convi ct ed of pos s es s i on of m etha m p h etam ine w ith inten t t o d istri b u te i n v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1). V al enci a fi l ed a § 2255 pe t i t i on i n fede r al di s tr i ctcourton A pr i l 18, 2006, cl ai m i ng thats he r ece i ved i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and thathers ent ence w a s i mpermi s s i bl ye nh a nc e d i n v i ol a t i on of U ni t e d St a t e s v. Booke r , 54 3 U. S. 220 ( 2005) , B l akel yv. W as hi ngt on, 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) , and A ppr endi v. N ewA C O A m ayi s s ue “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng 1 o f th e d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t.” § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). T h is re q u ire s V a len c ia to sh o w “ th a t re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld d e b a te w h e th e r (o r, fo r th a t m a tter, a g re e th a t) the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm annerorthatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . B eca us e the di s tr i ct c o u rt d id n o t ru le o n w h e th e r t o g ra n t V a le n c ia a C O A , w e a s s u m e it w a s d e n ie d . 1 0 th C ir . R . 2 2 . 1 (C ). A cc o rdin g ly , sh e m ayn o t app ea l th e d istri ct co u rt ’s d e c is io n a b s e n t a g ra n t o f C O A b yth is c o u rt .

- 2- J e rs e y , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ). T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed herpet i t i on as unt i m el yon A pr i l 20, 2006. V al enci a s ubs equent l ybr oughta “M ot i on R equi r i ng B ur den of Pr oof of J ur i s di ct i on, G r and J uryQ ual i fi cat i on, and U ni t ed St at es C our tforthe D istric t o f

U tah , C e n tra l D iv isio n a s a n A rticle III C o u rt.” C o n c lu d in g th a t th is m oti on w as an at t ack o n h er cr i m i nal s entence, the d i stri ctcou rtcon strued i tas a s ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i on and di s m i s s ed i tforfai l i ng t o m eetthe r equi r ement s of § 2 2 5 5 . V al enci a then fi l ed an “ obj ect i on” t o thi s di s m i s s al , w hi ch the di s tr i ct courtdeni ed on J une 9, 2006. V al enci a’ s N ot i ce of

A ppeal des i gnat es the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s J une 9, 2006 or deras the s ubj ectof herappea l . H ow ever , herappl i cat i on forC O A and 1 a c c o m p a n y in g b rie f

– ra isin g a rg u m e n ts u n d e r B o o k e r, B lak e ly , an d A p p re n d i – m ake c l earthats he i nt ends t o appea l the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of heror i gi nal habea s pet i t i on. M i s s t at i ng the r el evantor deri n a N ot i ce of A ppeal does not r equi r e ourdi s m i s s al . See U ni t ed St at es v. M or al es , 108 F. 3d 1213, 1222- 23 ( 10th C i r . 1997) . T hus , w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derV al enci a’ s appl i cat i onB eca us e the di s tr i ctcourtdi d notent era s epar at e j udgm entdi s pos i ng of 2 V alen cia’s § 2 2 5 5 p eti ti o n , jud g m en t i s d ee m ed en tered 1 5 0 d ay s fro m the e n try of the r el evantor der . Fed. R . C i v. P. 58( b) ( 2) ( B ) . T hus , the j udgm entdi s m i s s i ng the fir st § 2 2 5 5 p eti ti o n is de em ed en tered o n S ep tem b er 1 8 , 2 0 0 6 , an d V alen cia’s J une 26, 2006 N ot i ce of A ppeal i s t i m el y . See Thom ps on v. G i bs on, 289 F. 3d 1218, 1221 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng thata N ot i ce of A ppeal i s t i m el yw hen fi l ed b e fo re fin a l ju d g m e n t is e n te re d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt ).

- 3- fo ra CO A. 2 N o n e th e les s, w e m u st d e n ya C O A in th is c a se . A m o v a n t m u st g e n e ra lly file a § 2 2 5 5 p e titio n w ith in o n e y e a r f ro m th e d a te h e r c o n v ic tio n b e c o m e s fin a l. 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 . V alen cia d id n o t fi le he r pe ti ti o n u n ti l tw o -an d -a-h alf y ea rs aft erherfi nal j udgm entof convi ct i on. A l though ther e ar e r ecogni zed e xcept i ons t o the one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons for§ 2255 m ot i ons , s ee i d. , V al enci a has fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatanyof thos e exc ept i ons appl yt o hercas e. W e agr ee w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t h e r § 2 2 5 5 p e tit io n is tim e -b a rre d a n d a c c o rd in g ly DE NY herappl i cat i on fora C O A and D I SM I SS herappea l . W e GRANT her m o tio n to p ro c e e d o n a p p e a l in fo rm a p a u p e ri s . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge