T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of * the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s ; neverthel es s , an or derm aybe ci t ed underthe t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

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

### Ju n e16,2006 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 RO BE RT L E E P E AR S ON,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N os . 05- 6293 and 06- 6021 v . (W .D . o f O k la .) R O N W A R D , D epart m entof C o rrecti o n s D ir ec tor,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D. C. No. CV - 0 5 - 4 5 2 - L)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , HA RTZ , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. ** Pet i t i oner - A ppel l antR obertL ee Pea r s on, a s t at e pr i s onerappea r i ng pr o s e, see k s a C erti fica te of

A p p ea labili ty(C O A ) ch all en g ing the d istri ct co u rt ’s di s m i s s al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 habea s corpus pet i t i on and al s o appea l s the deni al of hi s R ul e 60( b) ( 1) m ot i on. B eca us e Pear s on has nei therm ade 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 , nordemonstr at ed-2-

s u ffi c i e n tc i r c u ms t a n c e s t o wa rr a n tr e l i e f u n d e rRu l e 6 0 ( b ) , we DE NY th e CO A and D I SM I SS t he appe al as t o the habe as pet i t i on i n 05- 6293, and A FFIRM the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on deny i ng the R ul e 60( b) m ot i on i n 05- 6021. I . Backg r ound P e a rso n p lea d e d g u iltyto m u lti p le c o u n ts o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to di s tr i but e contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s and pos s es s i on of a f i r earm w hi l e comm i t t i ng a fel ony . H e w as s ent ence d t o tw entyfi ve y ear s foreac h count , al l t o be s erved concurr ent l y . H e cl ai m s that : ( 1) hi s s ent ence w as i m pr oper l yenhanc ed us i ng sta le p rio r c o n v ictio n s, (2 ) h is c o u n se l w a s in e ffe c tiv e , an d (3 ) h e w a s im p ro p e rly dep ri ved of a p ost -convict i on app eal i n the O klahom a cou rt s. T h e m a g istra te ju d g e re c o m m e n d e d d ism iss a l o f th e first tw o g ro u n d s o f h is h a b e a s p e tit io n a s tim e -b a rre d a n d th e th ird g ro u n d fo r fa ilu re to sta te a c laim u p o n w h ich re lief

c a n b e g ra n ted . A lth o u g h n o tifie d o f h is o b lig a tio n to file o bje c tio n s to th e m a g is tr a te ’s re p o rt , P e a rs o n a p p a re n tly d id n o t d o s o . N onethel es s , the di s tr i ctcourtr evi ew ed hi s pet i t i on de novo and a dopt ed the ma g i s tr a t e ’ s r e c o mm e n d a t i o n . P e a r s o n a p p e a l e d th e d i s mi s s a l o f h i s p e t i t i o n . He then moved t o vaca t e and s etas i de j udgm entpur s uantt o R ul e 60( b) , al l egi ng that he had obj ect ed t i m el yt o the magi s tr at e’ s r ecomm endat i on. T he courtnot ed that al though i tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o gr antthe R ul e 60( b) ( 1) m ot i on due t o the p e n d e n c yo f

th e h a b e a s a p p e a l, it w a s f re e to d e n yth e m o tio n o n its m e ri ts . See-3-

A ldr ic h E n te rs ., In c . v . Un ite dS ta te s , 938 F. 2d 1134, 1143 ( 10th C i r . 1991) . T he c o u r td e n i e d P e a r s o n ’ s Ru l e 6 0 ( b ) mo t i o n , a n d P e a r s o n n o w s e e k s CO A. II . A n a ly sis A . D i s m i s s al of Pear s on’ s § 2254 M ot i on S i nce P ears on app ears p r o s e , w e m u s t c o n s tru e th e c o m p la in t lib e ra lly. S e e Ha in e s v . Ke r n e r, 4 0 4 U .S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0

– 2 1 (1 9 7 2 ); Hal lv. B el lm on , 935 F. 2d 1106, 1110 ( 10th C i r . 1991) . W e mayi s s ue a CO A “onl yi f the appl i canthas m a d e a s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . I f a di s tr i ctcourtr ej ect s a cl ai m on pr ocedur al gr ounds and does n o t re a c h th e m e rits, th e a p p e llan t se e k in g a C O A m u st d e m o n stra te “ th a t ju rists of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t an d th a t ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld fin d it d e b a tab le w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Slack v . McD ani el , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ). T h e An t i t e rr o r i s m a n d E ffe c t i v e De a th P e n a l tyAc to f 1 9 9 6 ( AE DP A) stip u late s: “ [ A ] 1 -y e a r p e rio d o f lim itatio n sh a ll ap p lyto a n a p p lica tio n fo r a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s b ya p e rso n in c u sto d yp u rsu a n t to th e ju d g m e n t o f a sta te court . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1) . Pear s on ent er ed a pl ea of gui l tyon J ul y3, 1996, and fa i l ed t o obj ectw i thi n t en day s aft erthe pr onouncementof hi s j udgm entand s e n te n c e . See R u le 4 .2 (A ), R u les o f th e O k lah o m a C o u rt o f C rim in a l A p p e a ls ( O C C A ) ( not i ng thatt o appea l fr om a gui l typl ea, the defendantm us tfi l e anT h e ten th ca lend ar d ayfe ll o n Ju ly1 3 , 1 9 9 6 , a S aturd ay . T h u s P ea rson ’s 1 convi ct i on beca m e fi nal on the fol l ow i ng bus i nes s day , M onday , J ul y15, 1996. -4- appl i cat i on t o w i thdr aw the pl ea w i thi n t en day s fr om the dat e of the p r o n o u n c e me n to f

j u d g me n ta n d s e n t e n c e ) . Th e r e fo r e , h i s c o n v i c t i o n b e c a me “fi nal ” for purpos es of § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) on J ul y 15, 1996. See Fis herv. G i bs on, 1 2 6 2 F .3 d 1 1 3 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (h o ld in g th a t a p e tit io n e r’s c o n v ictio n p u rsu a n t to a g u il typ lea w as final ten d ay s af ter en tryo f ju d g m en t and sen tenc e w h ere p eti ti o n er fail ed to ap p ea l) . B ec au se P ea rson init iat ed this acti o n in F eb rua ry 2004, r oughl ys even y ear s bey ond the one- y earr es tr i ct i on, the di s tr i ctcourtw as c o rr e c t in d is m is s in g th e fir s t tw o c la im s a s tim e -b a rr e d . W e a lso d en yC O A as to P ea rson ’s th ir d g rou n d fo r reli ef. P ea rson ’s a rg u m e n t ap p a re n tlyis th a t th e O k lah o m a c o u rts fa iled to ru le in h is fa v o r o n h is sta te h a b e a s p e tit io n . A n ya ttem p t b ya h a b e a s p e tit io n e r to c h a llen g e sta te “ p o stc o n v ictio n p ro c e d u re s . . . [ w ill ] fa il t o sta te a fe d e ra l co n stitu tio n a l cla im cogni zabl e i n a fe der al habea s pr ocee di ng. ” S te e le v . Yo u n g, 11 F. 3d 1518, 1521 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); s e e S e lle rs v . Wa r d, 135 F. 3d 1333 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng that an all eg ed d ep ri v ati o n o f d u e p roc ess b ase d o n the s tat e a p p ell ate c o u rt ’s r efus al t o gr antpos t - convi ct i on r evi ew w as notcogni zabl e i n a fe der al habea s corpus pr ocee di ng) . A ccor di ngl y , Pear s on i s notent i t l ed t o habea s r el i ef on g ro u n d th re e . B . D eni al of R ul e 60( b) M ot i on-5-

W e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt s ’ s deni al of a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on forabus e of d is c re tio n . S e e A ldr ic h E n te rs ., 938 F. 2d at1143. Pear s on cl ai m s he t i m el yfi l ed an obj ect i on t o the magi s tr at e’ s r ecomm endat i on, butthe pl eadi ng w as l os tatno faul tof hi s ow n. E ven though the obj ect i ons w er e unt i m el y , the courtcons i der ed it o n its m e ri ts . W e se e n o e rro r. F irst, th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyd e n ied ju risd ictio n d u e to th e p e n d e n c yo f

P e a rs o n ’s h a b e a s a p p e a l. Id . B u t, u n d er A ldr i ch the courtw as a ls o f re e to d e n yth e m o tio n o n its m e ri ts , w h ic h it d id . Id . “ R e lief u n d e r R u le 60( b) i s extr aor di naryand mayonl ybe gr ant ed i n exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s . ” Bu dBr o o ks Tr u c k i n g, In c . v . Bi l lHo dg e s Tr u c k i n gCo . , 909 F. 2d 1437, 1440 ( 10th C i r . 1990) . B eca us e Pear s on’ s obj ect i ons r ai s ed onl ythe s ame cl ai m s that had bee n pr evi ous l yaddr es s ed bythe di s tr i ctcourt , w e agr ee thatno exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s exi s t . T he R ul e 60( b) ( 1) m ot i on w as pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed. I I I . C oncl usi on Forthe r eas ons s t at ed above w e D E N Y the C O A and D I SM I SS t he appe al fro m the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er in 0 5 -62 9 3 . W e A F F IR M the d istri ct co u rt ’s j udgm enti n 05- 6021. Fi nal l y , w e D E N Y the mot i on t o pr ocee d i n f o r ma pa up eris. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge