UNITED STATES COU RT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT

LORA LEE THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 18-5061

v. (D.C. No. 4:18- CV-59-JED-FHM) (N.D. Okla.) DEBBIE ALDRIDGE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICA TE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL

Before BACHARACH , MURPHY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
This appeal involves the dismissa l of Ms. Lora Lee Thomas’s ha beas petition. The di strict court based the d ismissal on timeliness, and Ms. Thomas requests a certificate of appealability. W e deny her req uest for a certificate because the district court’s dismissal of the petit ion is not subject to reasonable debate. To appeal, Ms. Thomas must obtain a certificate of appealabilit y. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Because the distric t court relied on ti meliness, Ms. Thomas must show that the disposition was at least reasonably d ebatable. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 2, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 See Laurson v. Leyba , 507 F.3d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 2007). Ms. Thomas has not made this showing. A habeas petitioner has one year to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a state court judgme nt. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The one-year period ordinarily be gins to run when the petitioner’s convictio n becomes final. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d )(1)(A). Ms. Thomas’s conviction became fi nal on March 7, 2016, 90 days after the Oklahoma Cou rt of Criminal Appea ls had affirmed Ms. T homas’s conviction. Nonetheless, Ms. T homas waited until January 26, 20 18 (over 22 months after her c onviction had become fi nal) to file the ha beas petition. Because Ms. Thomas failed to f ile her petition w ithin the one-y ear period, she needed to either ju stify equitable tolling or demon strate actual innocence. Ms. Thomas tried to show both. The district court rej ected the argument for equitable tolling, reasoning that Ms. Thomas had failed to show diligent pursuit o f her rights or an “extraordinary circumstance” that prevented timely filing

. See Yang
v. Archuleta , 525 F.3d 925, 928 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Lawrence v.
Florida , 549 U.S. 327, 336 (2007 )). On appeal, Ms. T homas again urges equitable tolling, but she does not challenge the district cour t’s reasoning. For example, she does not discuss the district cou rt’s concerns with her3 lack of diligence or the absence o f extraordinary circumstances that would have prevented timely filing. Ms. Thomas instead argues that h er constitutional rights were violated. But a constitutional v iolation alone would not justif y equitable tolling. See Cole v. Warden , 768 F.3d 1150, 1158 ( 11th Cir. 2014) (“A habeas petitioner is not entitled to equita ble tolling simply b ecause she alleges constitutional violations at her trial or sentencing.”)

. The district court als o rejected Ms. Thoma s’s argument of actua l innocence, reasoning that her evidence was not new and would no t show innocence. On appeal, Ms. Thomas disagrees, but she does not st ate what was wrong with the district court’s analysis.
* * * Ms. Thomas fails to address the district court’s reasoning on timeliness. We therefore

 decline to issue a certifi cate of appealab ility and

 dismiss the appeal. Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge