Thi s or de ri s notbi ndi ng pr e c e de nt , e xc e ptunde rthe doc tr i ne s of l a w of * th e cas e, res ju d icata, and co llateral esto p p el. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 5, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT DAVI D L E E YOUNG ,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 07- 6130 v . W e s t e rn Di s tr i c to f Ok l a h o ma M I K E A D D I SO N , W ar den,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D . C . N o . 0 7 - C V - 1 1 4 - M)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e B RI S CO E , M c KAY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. D avi d L ee Y oung, a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , s eeks a ce rt i fi cat e of appea l abi l i ty( C O A ) t o appea l fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s habea s c o rp u s p e titio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 3(c) (1) (A ). B ecause w e c o n clud e tha t M r. Y oung has fai l ed t o m ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the d en ial o f a co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t, ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(2), w e d en yh is r eq u est fo r a C O A , an d d ism iss th e a p p e a l.-2- Backg r ound O n Ju n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 3 , M r. Y o u n g , the n re p re se n ted b yre tain e d c o u n se l, pleaded g uil tyt o thr ee cou nts of k i dn aping, tw o co un t s of robb eryw i th fir earm s, an d o n e c o u n t of

larcen yo f a n au tom o b il e. T h e c o n v ict ion an d sen tenc e w ere enter ed b ythe D i stri ctC ou rtof O klahom a C ou ntyon A ug ust1, 20 03 . O n A ug ust 7, 2003, M r . Y oung fi l ed a N ot i ce of Pl ea W i thdr aw al w i th the court . T hi s not i ce w as t i m el yunderR ul e 4. 2( A ) of the O kl ahoma C ourtof C r i m i nal A ppeal s , w hi ch al l ow s defe ndant s t o appea l fr om convi ct i on on a gui l typl ea onl yi f theyhave appl i ed t o w i thdr aw thei rpl ea w i thi n t en day s of the dat e of the pr onouncementof the j udgm entand s ent ence . O kl a. C t . C r i m . A pp. R . 4. 2( A ) . T he courtdi s m i s s ed M r . Y oung’ s m ot i on, and he di d nott i m el yappea l the di s m i s s al . H ow ever , on June 7 , 20 04 , w i th the ass i st ance o f cou nsel from the O klahom a Indi gen tD efen se Sy s t em, M r . Y oung w as gr ant ed l eave t o fi l e an appeal out - of- t i m e t o chal l enge the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s pl ea. O n February11, 2005, the O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s cons i der ed the appe al and a ffir m e d M r. Y o u n g ’s s e n te n c e . O n J anuary29, 2007, M r . Y oung fi l ed a pe t i t i on forhabea s corpus under 28 U . S. C . § 2254 i n the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma. H e as s ert ed thathe had r ece i ved i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el atthe t i m e of hi s pl ea a nd thatthe O k lah o m a p ro c e d u re fo r w ith d ra w in g a g u iltyp lea in ter fe re d w ith h is a b ili tyto di s coverand r ai s e thi s cl ai m . T he pet i t i on w as r evi ew ed bya magi s tr at e j udge,-3-

w ho found i tt i m e- barr ed and r ecomm ended di s m i s s al . T he di s tr i ctcourtagr eed a n d d ism iss e d th e p e tit io n o n M a y1 5 , 2 0 0 5 . M r. Y o u n g n o w se e k s a C O A to a p p e a l th is d ism iss a l. Di s c uss i on A fi n al o rd er d en y in g relief u n d er 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 may be ap p ealed o n ly if th e d is tr ictco u rto r t h is C o u rtfirs t is s u es a C O A . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 1 )( A ). A C OA wi l l i s s ue “onl yi f the appl i c a ntha s ma de as ubs t a nt i a l s howi ng of the de ni a l of

ac ons t i tut i ona l r i ght . ” 28 U. S. C. § 2253( c ) ( 2) . W he r e , a s he r e , the d is tr ictco u rtd en ies a h ab ea s p eti tio n o n p ro ce d u ra l g ro u n d s , aCO A shoul d i s s ue w h e n the pr i s one rs hows, a tl e a s t , tha tj ur i s t s of reas o n w o u ld fi n d it d eb atab le w h eth er th e p eti ti o n s tates a v alid c l a i m of the de ni a l of

ac ons t i tut i ona l r i ghta nd tha tj ur i s t s of r e a s on w o u ld fi n d it d eb atab le w h eth er th e d istric t c o u rt w as co rrect in its p ro ce d u ra l ru lin g . S lack v . M cD a n ie l , 529 U. S. 473, 484 ( 2000) . I n thi s c a s e , we c onc l ude tha tno rea so n able j u ri st w o u ld f ind the correc tness o f the distr ic t c o u rt ’s pro cedu ral ruli n g d ebatab le . T h e distri ctcou rth el d thatM r. Y o u n g ’s peti ti o n v iola te d the on e-y ear s t a tut e of

l i mi t a t i ons i mpos e d on habe a s pe t i t i ons bythe Ant i t e rr or i s m and E ff ectiv e D eath P en altyA ct o f 19 9 6 (A E D P A ), 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d )(1 ). T h is lim ita tio n s p er io d ru n s “ fro m th e la tes t o f” o n e o f fo u r p o s s ib le s tar t d ate s , i d. , a nd i s t ol l e d whi l e pr ope r l yf i l e d appl i c a t i ons f

ors t a t e pos t - c onvi c t i on r e l i e f or o th erco lla ter al r ev iew ar e p en d in g , i d. § 2 2 4 4 (d)(2 ). U n d er sub p ara g raph (A ),-4-

the l i mi t a t i on s per i od begi ns t o run o n “the dat e on w hic h the j ud gmentbec a me f i na l bythe c onc l us i on of di r e c tr e vi e w or the e xpi r a t i on of the t i me f

ors e e ki ng su ch rev ie w . ” Id. § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A). Be c aus e M r . Young di d notpe t i t i on the Supr e me Cour tof

the Uni t e d St a t e s f

orc e rt i or a r i a f

t e rhi s l os s be f

or e the Okl a homaCour tof

Cr i mi na l Appea l s , hi s c onvi c t i on be c a me f i na l f orpurpos e s of s u b p ar ag ra p h (A ) n in ety d ays a fterth at c o u rt ’s o rd eraffir m in g h is co n v ict io n . Se e Rhi ne v . Boone , 1 8 2 F . 3 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 5

– 5 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T h u s M r. Y o u n g ’s co n v iction b ecam e fi n al o n M ay1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , an d h e h ad u n til M ay1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , to file hi s pe t i t i on f

orhabe a s c orpus . Unders ubpa r a gr aph ( A), the n, hi s J a nua ry29, 20 07 pet i t i on w a s unti me l ybya tl e a st24 3 d a y s. M r . Young ar gue s , a s he di d be l ow, tha tthe t i me l i ne s s of hi s pe t i t i on s h o u ld in s tea d b e g o v er n ed b ys u b p ar ag ra p h (B ) o r ( D ), 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d)(1 )(B) & (D ). W e disagree. Unders ubpa r a gr aph ( B) , the one - y e a rl i mi t a t i ons pe r i od woul d be gi n t o run o n “ th e d ate o n w h ich th e imp ed imen t to fi lin g an ap p licati o n created b yS tate actio n in v io lation o f th e C o n stitu tio n o r law s o f th e U n ited S tates is rem o v ed , if the app li cant w as prev ented f rom f il ing b ysu ch S tate act ion . ” Id. § 2244( d) ( 1) ( B) . M r . Young as s e r t s tha tOkl a homa ’ s pr oc e dur e s f orwi thdr a wi ng a pl e aof gui l ty“i nt e r f

e r e d wi th hi s abi l i tyt o di s c ove ra nd r a i s e hi s i ne f f e c t i ve assi stan ce of

cou n sel cl ai ms.” P etr. ’s B r. 2 . S p eci f ic al ly , h e cl ai ms that “[u ]nd er Okl a homal a w, tr i a l c ouns e l was r e qui r e d t o pr e pa r e amot i on r a i s i ng i ne f f e c t i ve-5-

a ssi st a nce of

c ou nsel c l a i ms a gai nsthim se l f, ” w hic h cr e a t e s w hathe c a l l s a c onf l i c tof i nt e r e s t . Thi s a r gume nti s mi s di r e c t e d. Okl ahoma ’ s pr oc e dur e f or wi thdr a wi ng agui l typl e ai n s t a t e c ourtdi d not“pr e ve nt ” M r . Young f r om f i l i ng a f ederal h abeas p et it ion tw o y ear s late r. A n d even if M r. Y o u n g ’s re ta ined atto rn eyd u rin g th e p lea stag e co u ld b e said to h av e b een u n co n stitu tio n ally c on f l i c t e d, this “i mpedi me nt” had sure l ybee n re moved by20 04 , a tw hic h ti me M r. Y ou ng w a s r e pre se nte d b ynew c ou nsel f rom the O klaho maIndi gentD e f e nse S y ste m. Th is a ll eged con f li ct , then, cou ld n o t have inter f ere d w ith M r. Y o u n g ’s abi l i tyt o me e taone - y e a rde a dl i ne runni ng f r om M a y2005. Al t e rna t i ve l y , M r . Young ar gue s , unde rs ubpa r a gr aph ( D) the l i mi t a t i ons pe r i od s houl d run f

r om “ the da t e on whi c h the f a c tua l pr e di c a t e of

the c l a i m or c l a i ms pr e s e nt e d c oul d ha ve be e n di s c ove r e d thr ough the e xe r c i s e of due d ili g en ce.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d )(1 )(D ). M r. Y o u n g n ev er s u g g ests an ysp ecif ic da t e on whi c h he c oul d ha ve di s c ove r e d hi s c l a i m f ori ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of cou n sel , al tho u g h w e sup p o se he think s itmu st hav e been at som e t ime af te r Janu ary1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , w h ic h w o u ld mak e his p et it ion ti mel y . H o w ever, the re cord in d ica tes th at M r. Y o u n g h ad k n o w led g e o f th is cla im s h o rt ly afterh is co n v ict io n . I n hi s Not i c e of

Pl e aW i thdr a wal , f

i l e d onl yda y s a f

t e rhi s c onvi c t i on, M r . Young a s s e r t e d tha thi s a tt orne ywas “i ne f f e c t i ve i n hi s r e pr e s e nt a t i on” a nd tha tthe a dvi c e he ha d r e c e i ve d on the pl e aa gr e e me ntwas “m i s l e a di ng. ” R. Doc. 1, Ex. 9, at2 . F u rth er, h e w as re p rese n te d b yn ew cou n sel atthath ear ing and o n app eal-6-

b ef o re th e C o u rto f

C ri minal A p p eal s. H ad M r. Y o u n g exerci sed d u e dil igence, as i s r e qui r e d i n or de rt o qua l i f yf orade l a y e d tr i gge rda t e unde r§ 2244( d) ( 1) ( D), he w o u ld h av e ass erted h is claim as so o n as h e d isco v ered it. A s th e ma g istrate ju d g e h eld , M r. Y o u n g h as “ fai led to articu late an yreas o n forth e len g th yd elayin di s c ov e r i ng the f

a c tua l ba s i s of

hi s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ou ns e l c l a i m . ” R. Doc. 18, a t6. Fi na l l y , M r . Young as s e r t s tha the qua l i f i e s f ore qui t abl e t ol l i ng of the li mit at ion s p eri o d . H o w ever, equ it able t o ll ing o n lyapp li es w h en itis sho w n that a p riso n er “ d ili g en tlyp u rsu es h is claims an d d emo n strates th at th e fai lu re to ti mel yf il e w as cau sed b yextra o rdin aryci rcumstances bey o n d h is c o n tr o l. ” M a rsh v. S o a res , 223 F. 3d 1217, 1220 ( 10th Ci r . 2000) . M r . Young has notma de an ysh o w in g o f “ex trao rd in arycircu ms tan ces” th at p rev en ted h im fro m fili n g h is p eti tio n . F o r t h es e r ea s o n s , w e r eje ct M r. Y o u n g ’s re lia n ce o n 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d)(1 )(B) o r (D ), and agree w ith the cou rtb el o w thath is pet it ion w as unt i me l yunde rs ubpa r a gr aph ( A) of tha ts e c t i on. Con c l usi on A ccord ing ly , w e DE NY M r . Young’s r e que s tf oraCO A and DI SM I SS th is appe a l . Hi s mot i on t o pr oc e e d in fo rm a p a up eris i s a l s o DENI ED . E n tered forth e C o u rt, M ich ael W . M cC o n n ell Ci r c ui tJ udge