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

### A u gu s t30,2007 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 BI LLY J OE PRI CE,

P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, N o. 07- 4094 v. ( D . U t ah) C L IN T F R IE L , W a rd e n , U tah S tate Pr i s on, R es pondent- A ppel l ee. ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 5 - CV- 8 0 0 - DB)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. B i l l yPr i ce, a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i ty( C O A ) t o appea l the deni al byt he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor th e D is tr ic t o f

U ta h o f h is a p p lic a tio n fo r r e lie f u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . See 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 1 )( B ) ( re q u ir in g C O A to a p p e a l d e n ia l o f § 2 2 5 4 a p p lic a tio n ). T he di s tr i ctcourtrul ed thatthe appl i cat i on w as unt i m el y . W e denya C O A and d ism iss th e a p p e a l. M r . Pr i ce w as s ent ence d on A pr i l 5, 1993, i n U t ah s t at e courtt o an in d e ter m in a te te rm o f fiv e y e a rs to life im p riso n m e n t fo r first-d e g re e m u rd e r. H is pet i t i on fora w r i tof ce r t i or ar i fr om t he U t ah Supr eme C our tw as deni ed on A pr i l 9, 1996; and on M ay12, 1997, t he tr i al courtent er ed an a m ended j udgm ent-2-

of convi ct i on nunc pr o tunc, corr ect i ng M r . Pr i ce’ s s ent ence w i th r es pectt o a fi r earm s enhanc ement . I tappea r s fr om the r ecor d thatM r . Pr i ce di d nots eek c e rtio ra ri re v iew f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt. O n Sept ember26, 2005, M r . Pr i ce f i l ed hi s § 2254 appl i cat i on. T he di s t r i ct courtdeni ed hi s appl i cat i on beca us e i thad notbeen f i l ed w i thi n the one- y ear lim itatio n s p e rio d e sta b lish e d b yth e A n tit e rro rism a n d E ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A ctof 1996, 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1) . T he courtcomput ed thatthe l i m i t at i ons p e rio d b e g a n to ru n o n Ju ly3 , 1 9 9 6 , w h e n M r. P ric e ’s tim e fo r se e k in g re v iew in th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rt e x p ir e d , s ee Rhi ne v. B oone , 182 F. 3d 1153, 1155 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ; Sup. C t . R . 13( 1) ( pet i t i on forw r i tof ce r t i or ar i m us tbe fi l ed w i thi n 90 day s of entr yof j udgm ent ) . I tfur therfound thateven a s s um i ng th a t th e lim itatio n s p e rio d h a d n o t b e g u n to ru n u n til th e trial c o u rt h a d e n ter e d its nunc pr o tunc or deri n 1997 ( or30 day s aft erw ar ds , w hen the t i m e fors eeki ng r evi ew byt he U t ah Supr eme C our thad expi r ed) , M r . Pr i ce’ s 2005 appl i cat i on had s t i l l been f

i l ed overs even y ear s aft erthe l i m i t at i ons per i od had expi r ed. A l s o, the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed equi t abl e t ol l i ng. I tr ej ect ed M r . Pr i ce’ s cont ent i on that he had di s cover ed new evi dence s how i ng thathe w as actual l yi nnocent , rul i ng th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s n o t n e w b e c a u se it h a d b e e n a v a ilab le a n d k n o w n to M r. P ri c e b e fo re h is tr ia l. “W hen the di s tr i ctcourtdeni es a habe as pet i t i on on pr ocedur al gr ounds w ith o u t re a c h in g th e p riso n e r’s u n d e rly in g c o n stitu tio n a l cla im , a C O A sh o u ld-3-

iss u e w h e n th e p riso n e r sh o w s, a t lea st, th a t ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld fin d it debat abl e w hethert he pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal ri g h t and that juri sts of rea so 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. ” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 (20 0 0 ). M r. P ri ce d o es n o t, an d co u ld n o t, ch all en g e the d istri ct co u rt ’s det erm i nat i on t hathe fa i l ed t o fi l e hi s § 2254 appl i cat i on w i thi n the one- y ear l i m i t at i ons per i od. H e does ar gue, how ever , thathe has pr ovi ded s uffi ci ent gr ounds forr equi r i ng equi t abl e t ol l i ng. W e di s agr ee. E qui t abl e t ol l i ng for habea s corpus r el i ef maybe ava i l abl e i n extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s , s uch as w h e n “ a c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n h a s re su lted in th e c o n v ictio n o f o n e w h o is actual l yi nnocent . ” Mi l l er v. Marr , 1 4 1 F . 3 d 9 7 6 , 9 7 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). P ri so n ers a ss e rtin g a c tu a l in n o c e n c e m u st p ro d u c e “ n e w e v id e n c e ” e sta b lish in g th a t “it is m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t n o re a so n a b le ju ro r w o u ld h a v e fo u n d p e tit io n e r g u ilty bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” Ho u se v . B e ll , 1 2 6 S . C t. 2 0 6 4 , 2 0 7 6

– 7 7 (2 0 0 6 ). M r. P ric e c o n ten d s th a t a p sy c h o lo g ica l re p o rt fin d in g h im m e n tally i ncapa bl e of for m i ng the nec es s aryi nt entforfi r s t - degr ee mur deri s new evi dence of hi s actual i nnocenc e. W e do notagr ee thatthi s evi dence i s new . M r . Pr i ce w as t ol d atthe t i m e of the ps y chol ogi cal i nt ervi ew thata r eportof the eva l uat i on w oul d be made and s entt o the courtforus e byboth the pr os ecut i on and the defe ns e. A l though he maynothave r ead i t s ul t i m at e conc l us i on unt i l w el l aft er tr ia l, h e c e rt a in ly k n e w o f th e re p o rt ’s e x is te n c e b e fo re tr ia l.-4-

M r . Pr i ce a l s o cont ends i n thi s cour tthathe di d notdi s coverunt i l 2005 t hat hi s s ent ence had bee n amended i n 1997, and thathe fi l ed hi s § 2254 appl i cat i on w i thi n one y earof thi s di s covery . B uteven i f w e as s um e thatthe one- y ear l i m i t at i ons per i od s houl d be ca l cul at ed fr om the 1997 amendm ent , hi s appl i cat i on w as unt i m el ybys ever al y ear s . A nd he fa i l s t o expl ai n how notbei ng aw ar e of th e s e n te n c e a m e n d m e n t c a u s e d h im to d e la yfilin g h is a p p lic a tio n . Fi nal l y , M r . Pr i ce a r gues thathi s appl i cat i on s houl d notbe barr ed bythe o n e -ye a r l im ita tio n s p e ri o d b e c a u s e W a rd e n F ri e l w a iv e d a n u n tim e lin e s s d e fe n s e . B utther e w as no s uch w ai ver . T he pas s age i n W ar den Fr i el ’ s di s tr i ct - courtbr i ef upon w hi ch M r . Pr i ce r el i es m er el ys ay s thatM r . Pr i ce’ s cl ai m of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el i s notpr ocedur al l ybarr ed byfai l ur e t o r ai s e the c laim o n d ire c t ap p e a l in sta te c o u rt. N o r eas onabl e j ur i s tcoul d debat e the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s concl us i on that M r. P ric e ’s a p p lica tio n w a s u n tim e ly . W e D E N Y a C O A , G R A N T h is re q u e st to pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u

p e ris , an d D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l.

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge