UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________ _______________ VISITH NY,
Pl aintiff - Appellant,

v. RANDY LIND; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
De fendants - Appellees. No. 15-1194 (D.C. No. 1:15- CV-00697-LTB) (D. Colo.)

__________________ _______________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFI CATE OF APPEALABILITY

__________________ _______________ Before KELLY , BACHARACH , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

__________________ _______________ Mr. Visith Ny was conv icted of two counts of first degree extreme indifference murder under Colorado state law. The conviction became final in 2003, and Mr. Ny had one year to file a federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2012). He filed a federal habeas petition, but not until 2015. Because Mr. Ny did not file the habeas pe tition within one year, the district court dismissed the action as untimely. Mr. Ny has applied for a certificat e of appealability in order to appeal the dismissal of his habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). We can issu e the certificate on ly if reasonable jurists would find the district court’s procedural determination reasonably debatable. See FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### November 10, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Laurson v. Leyba , 507 F.3d 1230, 1232 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding that when the district court denies a habeas co rpus petition based on timeliness, the court of appeals can issue a certificate of appealabilit y only if the district court’s decision on timeliness is at least reasonably debatable). Because Mr. Ny has not presented a reasonably deba table argument on timeliness, we dismiss the appeal. I. The One-Year Deadline The limitations period ordinarily begins when the conviction became final. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) (2012). Because the conviction became final in June 2003, he ordi narily would have had to file a federal habeas petition by June 2004. Be cause he did not file a federal habeas petition until 2015, the action wo uld generally be considered time-barred. We liberally construe the habeas petition and Mr. Ny’s appellate filings. Davis v. McCollum , 798 F.3d 1317, 1319 n.2 (10th Cir. 2015). Mr. Ny contends he was unable to timel y file the federa l habeas petition because his post-c onviction counsel was ineffec tive. Through counsel, Mr. Ny filed a state post-convic tion motion in July 2008, lo ng after the federal habeas deadline had passed. The moti on was denied and the appeals were ultimately unsuccessful. Mr. Ny asserts that po st-conviction counsel not only failed to inform him of the federal habeas one-year filing deadline, but also told him not to worry about the timi ng. But Mr. Ny did not raise this issue in the district3 court, so “we consider the argument forfeited.” Hancock v. Trammell , 798 F.3d 1002, 1011 (10th Cir. 2015) (int ernal quotation marks omitted). Even if Mr. Ny had rais ed the issue in district court, he could not prevail. Mr. Ny “cannot successful ly assert that his counsel was constitutionally ineffectiv e at the post-conv iction stage becau se there is no constitutional right to an attorney in state post-convic tion proceedings.” Smallwood v. Gibson , 191 F.3d 1257, 1266 n.4 ( 10th Cir. 1999) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that any reasonable jurist would regard the habeas action as untimely. As a result, we decline to issu e a certificate of appealability on that ground. Therefor e, we need not address Mr. Ny’s remaining arguments. II. In Forma Pauperis Status Mr. Ny seeks leave to proceed in forma pauper is. The district court denied leave to proceed in forma pauper is in the appeal. We agree with the district court that this appeal was not taken in good faith, for Mr. Ny lacked a good faith basis to challenge the decision on time liness. Thus, we deny Mr. Ny’s request fo r leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Based on this determination, we remind Mr. Ny that he remains liable for his appellate fees.4 III. Conclusion We deny Mr. Ny’s motion to procee d in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge