FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 13, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12130 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e t N o s . 0 6 - 0 0 2 8 4 - C V- DH B & 0 1 - 0 0 0 2 8 - C R - DH B C A R L M . D R U R Y , J R ., P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 13, 2007) B efo re C A RN E S , M A R C U S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg e: Ca r l M . D ru ry , J r . , a f e d e r a l p r i s o n e r p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , ap p e a l s t he di s m i s s a l o f hi s m ot i on t o va c a t e , f i l e d pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2255, a s ba rr e d by2

th e o n e - y e a rs ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s o f

th e A n tite r r o r i s m a n d E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A ctof 19 96 (“ A E D P A ”) , P ub . L . N o. 10 4-13 2, 11 0 S t at . 12 14 (199 6). W e gra nt ed
a c ert i fi ca t e of ap peal abi l i ty on the i ss ue of w hether the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s began to ru n w h e n th e S u p r e m e C o u r t d e n ie d D ru ry ’s p e titio n f o rc e r t i o r a r i o rw h e n it d e n ie d h is p e titio n f

o rr e h e a r in g o f

th e d e n ia l o f

c e r tio r a r i. T he S upr e m e C our tde ni e d D rury ’ s pe t i t i on f orc e r t i or a r i on O ct o b er 3, 2005. D rury v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 546 U . S . 813 ( 200 5 ). I f the s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons be ga n the n, D rury ha d unt i l O c t obe r 3 , 2006 t o f i l e hi s § 2255 m ot i on. T he S upr e m e C our tde ni e d hi s pe t i t i on f orr e he a r i ng on N ove m b e r28, 2005. D rury v. U ni t e d S t at es, 5 4 6 U . S . 1055 ( 2005) . D rury , thr ough c ouns e l , f i l e d thi s § 2255
m ot i on t o va c a t e on N ove m be r27, 2006, w hi c h w a s m or e tha n one ye a ra f t e rthe d e n ia l o f t h e p e t i tio n f o rc e r tio r a r i, b u t le s s th a n o n e y e a ra f te rth e d e n ia l o f

h is p e titio n f o rr e h e a r in g . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t a§ 2 2 5 5 m o tio n to va c a t e i s t i me - ba rr e d. J on e s v. U ni t e d St a t e s , 30 4 F. 3d 10 35 , 10 37 ( 11 t h C i r. 2002) . T he A E D P A i m pos e s aone - y e a r st atu t e of l i m i t a t i ons f

orf i l i ng a§ 2255
m ot i on t o v a c a t e , w h i c h b e g i n s t o ru n f o l l o w i n g o n e o f

f o u re v e n t s , th e r e l e v a nt tri gg eri n thi s c as e bei ng “th e d ate on w hi ch the j ud gm entof conv i ct i on becom es fi nal . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5. T he S up re m e C ou rthas hel d th at“ [f ] i nal i ty a tt ac hes3

w h en th i s C o u rtaffi rm s a co n v i ct i o n o n th e m e r its o n d i rectrev i ew o r d en i es a pe t i t i on f

oraw r i tof

c e r t i or a r i , orw he n the t i m e f orf i l i ng a ce r t i or a r i pe t i t i on e xpi r e s . ” C l a y v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 537 U . S . 522, 527 ( 2003) . L i ke w i s e , w e ha ve he l d tha tac onvi c t i on be c om e s f i n al t h e da y the S upr e m e C our tde ni e s a pe t i t i on f orc e r t i or a r i ori s s ue s ade ci si o n o n t h e m e r i t s . W a s hi ngt on v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 243 F .3 d 1 2 9 9 , 1 3 0 0 - 0 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . W hi l e ne i the rthi s C our tnorthe S upr e m e C our tha s a ddr e s s e d the i m pa c tof the fi l i n g o f a pe t i t i on f orr e he a r i ng on the one - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons unde r28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5, S up re m e C ou rtR ul e 16. 3, ent i t l ed “ D isp o siti o n of a P et i t i on for a W r it o f C e r tio r a r i,” p r o v id e s : W henever the C ou rtdeni es a petit i on for aw ri tof ce rt i orar i , the C l erk w i l l prep ar e, sign , and ent eran order t o thatef fe ctand w i l l no t i fy f o rt h w i th c ouns e l of

r e c or d a nd the c our tw hos e j udgm e ntw a s s ought t o be r e vi e w e d. T he or de rof de ni a l w i l l notbe s us pe nde d pe ndi ng di sposi ti o n of a pet i t i on for r ehea ri ng exce ptby order of the C ou rtor a Just i ce . S u p . C t. R . 1 6 .3 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T h u s , b y its u n e q u iv o c a l la n g u a g e , R u le 1 6 .3 s t a t e s th a tap e t i t i o n f

o rc e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w i s r e s o l v e d wh e n th e C o u r td e n i e s r e v i e w, unl e s s the S upr e m e C our toraJ us t i c e i nt e rve ne s , nei t h er of w hi c h oc c urr e d a ta ny p o in t in th e p r o c e s s in D ru ry ’s c a s e . T h is co n cl u si o n i s co n si st en t w i th th e d eci si o n s o f si x o f o u r si st er co u rts to ha ve c ons i de r e d the i s s ue . S ee In re S m i th, 436 F . 3d 9, 10 ( 1s tC i r . ) ( appl y i ng4

S u p . C t . R . 16. 3 a nd hol di ng tha ta “ c onvi c t i on be c om e s f i na l f orpurpos e s of tr i gge r i ng the one - y e a rl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od of s ec t i on 2255 w he n c e r t i or a r i i s de ni e d,
r e g a r d l e s s o f

w h e th e ra p e titio n f

o rr e h e a r in g is f

ile d o rw h e n s u c h p e titio n is de ni e d “ ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 127 S . C t . 284 ( 2006) ; R obi ns on v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 416 F . 3d 645, 650 ( 7th C i r . 2005) (h o l d i n g t ha t“ pe t i t i on f orr e he a r i ng the de ni a l of [pet i t i on er ’ s] ce rt i orar i pet i t i on had n o eff ec ton the fi nal i ty of hi s c on vi ct i on ”) ; C a mpa - Fa be l av. Coc kr e l l , 33 9 F. 3d99 3, 99 3 ( 8th Ci r . 20 03 ) ( ho l di ng that
conv i ct i on w as fi nal atthe deni al of pet i t i on for w ri tof ce rt i orar i , ra th er than d eni al of pe t i t i on f

orr e he a r i ng) ; G i e s be r g v. C oc kr e l l , 2 8 8 F . 3 d 2 68, 270 ( 5th C i r . 2002) ( s a m e ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . S e g e r s , 2 7 1 F .3 d 1 8 1 , 1 8 4 ( 4 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( h o ld in g th a t “in the abs e nc e of

a n or de rof

the C ou rt ora J us t i c e the r e of , a pe t i t i on f

orr e he a r i ng of the de ni a l of

c e r t i or a r i ha s no e f

f e c t ” ) ; U ni t ed S t a t e s v. W i l l i s , 202 F . 3d 1279, 1280- 81 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( hol di ng tha t , based o n S u p . C t . R . 16. 3 a nd abs e nt s us pe ns i on by a n or de rof the S upr e m e C o u rt o f a Jus t i c e , aj udgm e ntof c onvi c t i on i s f i na l a tthe de ni a l of

c e r t i or a r i , “ r e ga r dl ess of w he the rape t i t i on f

orr e he a r i ng fr om the deni al of ce rt i orar i i s f i l ed. ”) . W e n o w jo in o u r s ister c ircu it s a n d , co n sisten t w ith th e S u p r em e C o u rt’s d eci si o n i n C la y , h o ld th atfi n al i ty att ach es w h en th e S u p rem e C o u rtd en i es a habe a s pe t i t i one r ’ s pe t i t i on f orc e r t i or a r i r e vi e w . D rury ’ s f i l i ng of a m o t i o n f

or5

r e c ons i de r a t i o n o f the S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on di d nota f f e c tthe di s pos i t i on of h is c a s e in th e S u p r e m e C o u r t, a n d w e s e e n o r e a s o n w h y s u c h am o tio n w o u ld to ll the t i m e fo r fi l i ng a§ 2255 m ot i on. U pon the de ni a l of hi s c e r t i or a r i pe t i t i on, D rury ’ s c onvi c t i on w a s f i na l f orpurpos e s of

the A E D P A ’ s l i m i t at i o ns pe r i od. A c c or di ngl y , w e di s c e rn no e rro r i n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of D rury ’ s § 2255
m o tio n a s tim e - b a rr e d . AF F I RME D.