T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### F e b r u ary8,2007 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 C A R L W IL L IA M P U R S L E Y , J R ., P e tit io n e r – A p p e llan t, v. A L EST EP, W a r de n, LC F; AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE S T AT E OF CO L OR ADO, R espon den t s – A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1496 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV - 1 7 6 7 - P S F - M E H)

(D . C o lo .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. C arl W . P ursl ey , Jr . , a st at e pri soner proceed i ng pro se, request s a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili ty(“ C O A ” ) to a p p e a l th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f h is 28 U . S. C . § 2254 habea s pet i t i on. Fors ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons s etfor th by the di s tr i ctcourt , w e DE NY a C O A and D I SM I SS . Pur s l eyw as convi ct ed i n C ol or ado di s tr i ctcourtof att empt ed fi r s tdegr ee m ur der , s econd de gr ee mur der , and tw o habi tual cr i m i nal count s . H e w asT he A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ct( “A E D PA ”) condi t i ons 1 a pet i t i oner ’ s r i ghtt o appea l a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of habe as r el i ef unde r§ 2254 u p o n a g ran t of

a C O A . 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(1)(A ). A C O A m a yb e iss u e d “ o n ly i f the appl i canthas m 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 rig h t.” § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). T h is re q u ire s P u rsle yto sh o w “ th a t re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld debat e w hether( or , forthatm att er , agr ee that ) t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en re so lv e d in a d iffe re n t m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . A ccor di ngl y , Pur s l eym aynotappea l t he di s t r i ct c o u rt ’s d e c is io n a b s e n t a g ra n t o f a C O A b yth is c o u rt . - 2 - s ent ence d t o a t ot al of 90 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . H e exha us t ed hi s di r ectappea l rig h ts o n O c to b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 5 , w h e n th e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ied h im a w rit of ce r t i or ar i . O n A ugus t20, 1998, Pur s l eyfi l ed a mot i on fors t at e pos t convi ct i on r el i ef, exhaus t i ng hi s s t at e col l at er al r emedi es on Sept ember6, 2005. Pur s l ey then fi l ed a pe t i t i on forfede r al habea s r el i ef pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254 on Sept ember13, 2005, i n w hi ch he a s s er t ed el even gr ounds forr el i ef. T he di s tr i ct courtdi s m i s s ed hi s pet i t i on as t i m e- barr ed and de ni ed a CO A . Pur s l eynow s eeks a C O A f ro m th is c o u rt. 1 Sect i on 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) pr ovi des a one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons for§ 2254 pet i t i ons fr om the dat e the j udgm entbecomes fi nal . Pur s l eyconce des t hathe had u n ti l A p ri l 24 , 1 9 9 7 to fil e h is pe ti ti o n , o r on e y ea r fro m the d ate o f A E D P A ’s e n a c tm e n t. S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . H u rs t, 3 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 6 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). Y e t, be c a u se “ [ t]h e tim e d u rin g w h ich a p ro p e rlyfiled a p p lica tio n fo r S tate pos t - convi ct i on orot hercol l at er al r evi ew w i th r es pectt o the pert i nentj udgm ent orcl ai m i s pendi ng s hal l notbe count ed t ow ar d anyper i od of l i m i t at i on under- 3 -

thi s s ubs ect i on, ” § 2244( d) ( 2) , the l i m i t at i ons per i od w oul d be t ol l ed dur i ng the pendenc yof Pur s l ey ’ s m ot i on fors t at e pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef. P u rsle y ’s c e n tra l ar g u m e n t o n a p p e a l is th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in fi nd i ng that he di d n ot fi l e his m oti on for st at e po st -convict i on rel i ef un t i l A ug ust 20, 1998, w el l aft er the l i m i t at i ons per i od ended. H e ar gues t hatw e s houl d l ook nott o the dat e the s t at e mot i on w as fi l ed, butt o hi s “M ot i on forA ppoi nt m entof C ouns el forPost - C onvi ct i on Pr ocee di ngs Pur s uantt o C ol o. R . C r i m . P. 35( c) , ” dat ed J une 13, 1996, and s ubs equentm ot i ons s eeki ng appoi nt m entof couns el , for t oll i ng pu rposes. T hos e mot i ons w er e notpartof the r ecor d befor e the di s tr i ct c o u rt ; h o w e v e r, P u rs le yh a s n o w m o v e d to s u p p le m e n t th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l. H avi ng r evi ew ed the mot i ons , w e s ee no r eas on t o departfr om t he j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcourtthatPur s l ey ’ s m ot i ons forappoi nt m entof couns el di d not“s t at e ade quat e fa ctual orl egal gr ounds forr el i ef, ” as r equi r ed fort ol l i ng underC ol o. R . C r i m . P. 35( c) ( 3) ( i v) , and thus di d nott ol l t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . See R obi ns on v. G ol der , 443 F. 3d 718, 720 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng thata mot i on fors t at e pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i s “pr oper l yfi l ed” onl yi f i ts at i s fi es th e sta te’ s p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts). A s s u c h , this c a se is re a d ilyd istin g u ish a b le fr om ourdeci s i on i n H abt es el as s i e v. N ovak, i n w hi ch w e hel d thata mot i on for r el i ef pur s uantt o C ol or ado R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 35 t ol l ed the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i f i tr eques t ed appoi nt m entof new couns el , s oughtpos t - convi ct i on- 4 -

reli ef, an d stat ed ad eq u ate g rou n d s fo r reli ef. 2 0 9 F . 3 d 1 2 0 8 , 1 2 1 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). I n the al t ernat i ve, Pur s l eyar gues thathe s houl d be exc ept ed fr om A E D PA ’ s s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons on gr ounds of ac tual i nnocenc e. See Schl up v. D el o, 513 U . S. 298, 327 ( 1995) . B eca us e he ha s pr es ent ed no new evi dence that m akes i t“more l i kel ythan nott hatno r eas onabl e j ur or ” w oul d have c onvi ct ed hi m , w e dec l i ne t o do s o. I d. F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tfo r th a b o v e , P u r s l e y ’ s mo t i o n s t o p r o c e e d i n fo r ma pauper i s and t o s uppl ementt he r ecor d on appea l ar e GR ANTED , h is r eq u est fo r a C O A i s DENI ED , and his app eal i s DI S M I S S ED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge