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

### S ep t e m b e r6,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT J E S US M E NDOZ A,

P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 6131 v. ( W . D . O kl ahoma) B R U C E H O W A R D , W a rd e n ,

R es pondent- A ppel l ee. ( D. C. No . CI V- 0 5 - 1 3 8 4 - C)

OR DER B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. Jesus M end oza an O klahom a st at e pri soner proceed i ng pro se, seeks a cert i fi cat e of appeal abi l i ty( “C O A ”) t o appea l the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 pet i t i on forhabea s corpus as unt i m el yfi l ed. M r . M endoza also see k s to p roc ee d in fo rm a p au p eris (“IF P ”). I n h is § 2 2 5 4 p eti ti o n , M r. M endozaal l eged vi ol at i ons of hi s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e r i ght s , i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , i ns uffi ci entevi dence , confl i ctof i nt er es ton the partof the d i s tr i c ta tt o rn e y , l a c ko f a tr a n s l a t o ra n de n tr ap me n t . F o rs u b s t a n t i a l l yth e s a me r eas ons s etforth bythe magi s tr at e j udge i n i t s w el l - r eas oned r eportand rec o m m en d ati o n , an d ad o p ted b ythe d istri ct co u rt , w e d en yM r. M en d o za ’s-2-

ap p li ca ti o n fo r a C O A , d en yh is m o ti o n to p roc ee dIF P , an dd ism iss th is m att er.

I . BA CK GR OUND I n D ece m ber2003, M r . M endozapl eade d gui l tyt o di s tr i but i on of contr ol l ed dange r ous s ubs t ance s , unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a c ontr ol l ed dange r ous s ubs t ance , unl aw ful pos s es s i on of drug par aphernal i a, and cul t i vat i on of a c o n tr o lle d d a n g e ro u s s u b s ta n c e . M r. M e n d o z a d id n o t s e e kto w ith d ra w h is p le a . O n N ovember28, 2005, M r . M endozafi l ed thi s § 2254 pet i t i on i n fede r al court . T he magi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended de ni al of the pet i t i on as t i m e- barr ed underthe one- y earl i m i t at i on per i od es t abl i s hed by28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) . T he m agi s tr at e j udge al s o not ed thatM r . M endozadi d notpr es entanyexce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s thatm i ghtw arr antequi t abl e t ol l i ng. T he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed th e s e r e c o mm e n d a t i o n s a n d d e n i e dM r . M e n d o z a a CO A.

I I . DI S CU S S I ON A C O A can i s s ue onl y“i f the appl i canthas m ade as 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 . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . “A pet i t i oner sa tisfies th is s tan d a rd b yd e m o n stra tin g th a t ju rists o f re a so n c o u ldd isa g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt’s r e so lu tio n o f h is c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s o r th a t ju rists c o u ld conclude the i s s ues pr es ent ed ar e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d further . ” Mille r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 5 3 7 U . S . 3 2 2 , 3 2 7 (20 0 3 ). W h en a d istri ct co u rt-3-

h a s d ism iss e d a h ab e a s p e tit io n o n p ro c e d u ra l g ro u n d s, a c e rtific a te w illo n ly issue w h en “jurist s o f re aso n w o u ld find itd eb atab le w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt w as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 (2 0 0 0 ). U n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d )(1 ), “[ a ] 1 -y e a r p e rio do f lim itatio n sh a ll ap p ly to a n ap p lica tio n fo r a w rit o f h ab 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 the ju d g m en t of

a S tat e c o u rt . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 4 (d)(1 ). M r. M en d o za ’s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal on D ece m ber19, 2003, t en day s aft erthe pr onouncement o f h is ju d g m e n t a n d s e n te n c e . See Fis herv. G i bs on , 2 6 2 F .3 d1 1 3 5 , 1 1 4 2 (1 0 th C i r . 2001) ( pet i t i oner ’ s gui l typl ea c onvi ct i ons w er e notappea l ed, and, ther efor e, b e c a m e fin a l ten d a y s a f tere n tryo f

th e ju d g m e n t an dse n ten c e ) (c iti n g O k la. S tat. tit. 2 2 , § 1 0 5 1 ; R u le 4 .2 , R u le s o f th e O k la h o m a C o u rto f C ri m in a l A p p e a ls ). T her efor e, abs entt ol l i ng, M r . M endozahad unt i l D ece m ber19, 2004 t o fi l e a t i m el yfede r al habea s pet i t i on. B e fo re th e d istric t co u rt, M r. M e n d o z a a rg u e dth e lim itatio n s p e rio dis s u bje c t to s ta tu to ry to llin g w h ile h e p ro c e e d e dw ith h is p o s tc o n v ic tio n filin g s . H o w e v e r, M r. M e n d o z a fir s t s o u g h t p o s tc o n v ic tio n re lie f o n J u ly 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , af

ter th e e x p ira tio n o f

th e lim itatio n s p e rio d . T h e re fo re , sta tu to ryto lli n g is u n a v a ilab le to h im fo r th is filin g . See Fis her , 2 6 2 F .3 da t 1 1 4 2 -4 3 . M r . M e n d o z a a l s o a r g u e d th a th e wa s e n t i t l e dt o s t a tu t o ryt o l l i n g fo rtwo s e p a ra te ly f

ile d m o tio n s fo r s e n te n c e m o d ific a tio n u n d e r O k la . S ta t. tit. 2 2 , §-4-

982a. T he magi s tr at e j udge corr ect l yconcluded thats uch s ent ence m odi fi cat i on m ot i ons do not“cons t i tut e pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs forpurpos es of t ol l i ng the A E D PA l i m i t at i ons per i od. ” R ec. doc. 17 at5 ( M ag. J udge’ s R eportand R ecom m end at i on , dated Fe b. 24 , 20 06 ). F urtherm ore, the m agis trat e j ud ge als o c o rr e c tly c o n c lu d e d th a t, e v e n if m o tio n s file dp u rs u a n t to O k la . S ta t. tit. 2 2 , § 9 8 2 a w o u ldq u a lifyto sta tu to rilyto ll th e lim itatio n s p e rio d , su c h to lli n g w o u ld n o t sa v e M r. M e n d o z a ’s § 2 2 5 4 p e tit io n f ro m its u n tim e lyfili n g . T h e m a g istra te jud g e a lso d eterm ined that M r. M en d o za fa il ed to d em o n str ate a n yex tr ao rdin ary c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t m ig h t w a rr a n t e q u ita b le to llin g . See G i bs on v. Kl i nger , 232 F .3 d 7 9 9 , 8 0 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). B ase d o n o u r rev iew o f th e re co rd o n ap p ea l, the m ag istrate jud g e’s rep o rt and r ecomm endat i on, the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der , and M r . M endoza ’ s s ubm i s s i ons t o thi s court , w e ar e notper s uaded j ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d di s agr ee w i th the d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s d i s p o s i t i o n o f M r . M e n d o z a ’ s § 2 2 5 4 p e t i t i o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we D E N Y M r . M endoza ’ s r eques tfora C O A , D E N Y hi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d I FP, and D IS M IS S th e m a tte r. E n ter e dfo r th e C o u rt,

R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge