-1- 

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

### A p ril25,2007 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

I BN OM AR - M UHAMM AD, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. J O E W I L L I A M S, W ar den, R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 2308 ( D . C. N o. CI V - 97 - 10 43 - M V / RL P)

(D . N .M .)

OR DER DENYI NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efo re LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. Pet i t i oner - A ppel l antI bn O m ar - M uhamm ad s eeks a ce rt i fi cat e of a pp e a l a bi l i ty( " CO A " ) t o app e a l the di s tr i c tc ou rt ' s de ni a l of hi s Fe d. R. Ci v. P. R ul e 60( b) ( 6) m ot i on forr el i ef f r om the di s tr i ctcourt ' s or derof D ece m ber29, 2 0 0 0 , d ism iss in g h is w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 a s u n tim e ly fi l ed. W e di s cern no err ori n the di s tr i ctcourt ' s di s pos i t i on and thus denythe C O A a n d d is m is s th is a p p e a l. I O n O c to b e r 2 8 , 1 9 8 7 , M r. O m a r-M u h a m m a d w a s c o n v icte d in C u rryC o u n ty D i s tr i ctC ourt , N ew M exi co, forfi r s t - degr ee mur der . H e appe al ed hi s convi ct i on- 2 -

in sta te c o u rt a n d , u lti m a tely , the N e w M e x ico S u p re m e C o u rt a ffirm e d h is convi ct i on on O ct ober26, 1988. Seven y ear s l at er , M r . O m ar - M uhamm ad fi l ed a pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i n s t at e court . M r . O m ar - M uhamm ad’ s i ni t i al pet i t i on i n fede r al court , fi l ed under28 U . S. C . § 2254 i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew M exi co, w as di s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce on A pr i l 8, 1 9 9 6 , b e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt fo u n d th a t h e h a d n o t y e t ex h a u ste d a ll o f h is c laim s in sta te c o u rt. O n A p ril 2 3 , 1 9 9 7 , M r. O m a r-M u h a m m a d re tu rn e d to sta te courtw i th a pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus , w hi ch w as deni ed on J ul y11, 1997, and hi s pet i t i on forw r i tof ce r t i or ar i t o the N ew M exi co Supr eme C ourtw as deni ed on J ul y24, 1997. H av ing n o w ex h au sted h is st ate c o u rtrem ed ies, o n A u g u st 6, 19 9 7 , M r. O m ar - M uhamm ad r efi l ed hi s pet i t i on i n fede r al di s tr i ctcourt . U l t i m at el y , on D ece m ber29, 2000, the di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on, rul i ng thatthe a p p lica b le o n e -y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s p e rio d fo r h a b e a s p e tit io n e rs in sta te cus t odyunderthe A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ctof 1996 ( “A E D PA ”) , 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1) , expi r ed on J ul y25, 1997 – thati s , the day aft erthe N ew M exi co Supr eme C ourtfi nal i zed i t s di s pos i t i on of hi s s t at e habe as cl ai m . A s the di s tr i ctcourts aw i t , M r . O m ar - M uhamm ad’ s fede r al habea s pet i t i on, fi l ed on A ugus t6, w as tw el ve day s l at e. T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o deni ed M r. O m ar-M u h am m ad ’s req u est fo r a C O A . (A p lt . A p p . at 10 1 -03 . ). M r. O m arM uhamm ad then s oughta C O A fr om us , w hi ch w e deni ed on A ugus t24, 2001,- 3 -

not i ng thathi s pet i t i on w as notfi l ed w i thi n A E PD A ’ s one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , thatthe mai l box rul e di d notappl yt o N ew M exi co ca s es , and that c ir c u m s ta n c e s in M r. O m a r- M u h a m m a d ’s c a s e d id n o t w a rr a n t e q u ita b le to llin g . See O m ar - M uhamm ad v. W i l l i ams, 17 Fed. A ppx. 898 ( 10th C i r . A ug. 24, 2001) (un p u b . ). A pp roxi m at el ythree y ears l at er i n 2 00 4, w e decided S err ano v. W i l l i am s, 3 8 3 F .3 d 1 1 8 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). In th a t ca se , w e h e ld A E D P A ’s o n e -y e a r sta tu te o f l i mi t a t i o n s a p p l i c a b l e t o fe d e r a l h a b e a s p e t i t i o n s i n s t a t e c u s t o d y , 2 8 U. S . C. § 2244( d) ( 1) , s houl d be t ol l ed dur i ng the 15- dayper i od al l ow ed unders t at e l aw forfi l i ng a pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng w i th the N ew M exi co Supr eme C ourtfol l ow i ng i t s deni al of a pe t i t i on forw r i tof ce rt i or ar i . I d. at1187. N ear l ytw o y ear s aft erSerr ano, on A ugus t29, 2006, M r . O m ar - M uhamm ad fi l ed a mot i on pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) ( 6) w i th the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of N ew M ex ico. (A p lt . A p p . at 10 7 -12 4 ). In h is m o ti o n , M r. O m ar - M uhamm ad cl ai m ed that , bas ed on ourdeci s i on i n Serr ano, the di s m i s s al of hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on i n 1997 w as i m pr oper . Speci fi cal l y , he ar gued that , had the di s tr i ctcourtt ol l ed the A E D PA l i m i t at i ons per i od forthe 15- dayper i od a l l o w e d u n d e rS e rr a n o , h i s 1 9 9 7 fe d e r a l h a b e a s p e t i t i o n w o u l d h a v e b e e n 3 d a ys ear l yr atherthan 12 day s l at e. T hati s , acc or di ng t o M r . O m ar - M uhamm ad, the N ew M exi co Supr eme C ourtdeni ed ce rt i or ar i on J ul y24, 1997, and pr e- Serr ano the A E D PA l i m i t at i ons per i od expi r ed the nextday , J ul y25. B ut , pos t - Serr ano,- 4 -

th e lim itatio n s p e rio d w o u ld h a v e b e e n to lled fo r 1 5 d a y s a f terJu ly2 4 , o r u n til A u g u s t 9 . T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed M r . O m ar - M uhamm ad’ s R ul e 60( b) ( 6) m ot i on on S ep tem b er 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 . Itp o inted to G o n za lez v . C rosb y , 5 4 5 U . S . 5 2 4 , 5 3 5 (20 0 5 ), i n w hi ch the Supr eme C ourthel d thatan appe l l at e courtopi ni on l i ber al i zi ng the cal cul at i on of a l i m i t at i ons per i od butdeci ded af t erthe fi nal di s m i s s al of a habeas p e tit io n a s u n tim e lyd o e s n o t co n stitu te “ e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s” su fficie n t to “pr ovi de gr ounds forr econs i der at i on” underR ul e 60( b) ( 6) . D i s t . C t . O r derof S e p t. 25 , 2 0 0 6 , at 3 (A p lt. A p p . at 1 2 5 -1 2 8 .). M r. O m a r-M u h a m m a d th e n so u g h t a C O A fro m the d istri ct co u rt , b u t th e d istri ct co u rth as n o t ru led o n the re q u est fo r a COA wi th i n 3 0 d a y s a n d s o we mu s td e e m th e r e q u e s td e n i e d . S e e 1 0 th Ci r . R. 22. 1( c) . H avi ng fai l ed t o per s uade the di s tr i ctcourt , M r . O m ar - M uhamm ad now se e k s a C O A in th is c o u rt. II W e mayi s s ue a CO A onl yi f the pet i t i onerm akes “a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ). T o d o s o , a p e tit io n e r m u st “ sh o w [ ], at le a st, th a t ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld fin d it d e b a tab le w hetherthe 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 r i ghtand thatj ur i s t s of r eas ons w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ect in its p ro c e d u ra l ru lin g .” S lac k v . M c D a n iel, 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). W e d o n o t believe that M r. O m ar-M u h am m ad h as m et th is bu rde n . In- 5 -

order for M r. O m ar- M uh am m ad to obtai n rel i ef un der R ule 60(b)( 6), he m ust s how , i nt eral i a, “extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s ” w hi ch, the Supr eme C ourthas i ndi cat ed “w i l l r ar el yoccuri n the habe as cont ext . ” G onzal ez, 545 U . S. at535 ( ci t at i ons om i tt ed) . E ven more pr obl emat i cal l yforM r . O m ar - M uhamm ad, the Supr eme C our ti n G onzal ez r ej ect ed a c l ai m forR ul e 60( b) ( 6) r el i ef i nvol vi ng w hat pet i t i on er hi m sel f con cedes i s “a factsi tuati on verysi m i l ar t o thati n [h i s] c a s e .” P e titio n e r’ s B r. a t 1 3 . S o m e t i m e a f

t e rM r . G o n z a l e z ’ s h a b e a s c l a i m w a s d i s m i s s e d a s u n t i m e l y, th e S u p re m e C o u rta n n o u n c e d a n e w to llin g ru le in A rtu z v . B e n n e tt, 5 3 1 U .S . 4 , 8 (2 0 0 0 ), th a t w o u ld h a v e , h a d it b e e n in fo rc e e a rlier , p e rm itt e d M r. G o n z a lez to pur s ue hi s habea s pet i t i on. O n the bas i s of the A rtuz rul i ng, M r . G onzal ez f i l ed a R ul e 60( b) ( 6) m ot i on s eeki ng t o r eopen hi s habea s pet i t i on. U l t i m at el y , the Supr eme C our trul ed thati t s new deci s i on i n A rtuz di d notcr eat e the s ortof “e x tr ao rdin arycircu m stan ce s” re q u ir ed b yR u le 60 (b)(6 ) t o reo p en M r. G o n za lez’s c a se . In d e n y in g re lief, the S u p re m e C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t “[ i]t is h a rd ly e x tra o rd in a ryth a t su b se q u e n tly , af terp e tit io n e r’s c a se w a s n o lo n g e r p e n d in g , this C o u rta rr iv e d a t a d iffe re n t in te rp re ta tio n [ o f a s ta tu to ry lim ita tio n s p e ri o d ] . . . . [N ] oteveryi nt erpr et at i on of the . . . s t atut es s ett i ng forth the r equi r ement s for ha be a s pr ov i de s c a us e fo rr e op e ni ng c a s e s l on g s i nc e fi na l . ” G on z a l e z , 54 5 U. S. a t 5 3 7 .- 6 -

W e s e e n o w a yin w h ic h w e m ig h t a rr iv e a t a d iffe re n t r e s u lt in th is c a s e . T he Supr eme C ourthel d thati t s new l i m i t at i ons per i od rul i ng i n A rtuz di d not su p p lyth e so rt o f

“ e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e ” n e c e ss a ryfo r re tro a c tiv e ly r eopeni ng fi nal di s pos i t i ons of habe as pet i t i ons s uch as M r . G onzal ez’ s , and one n ee d o n lysu b sti tute S erran o fo r A rtu z in th at eq u ati o n to se e h o w w e a re co m p ell ed to d en yM r. O m ar-M u h am m ad ’s req u ested reli ef. M r. O m arM u h am m ad ac k n o w ledg es th e g rea t si m il arit ies b etw ee n h is case an d M r. G o n z a lez ’s, c o n c e d in g th a t G o n z a lez “ [ a ]t first b lu sh . . . w o u ld a p p e a r to defini t i velyres olve” hi s appea l , P et i t i on er’ s B r. at14 , bu tasks us t o d i st i ng uis h G onzal ez on the bas i s thatSerr ano corr ect ed w hathad bee n a cl ear l yerr oneous in te rp re ta tio n o f

A E D P A w h ile A rtu z d e c id e d a h a rd e r, c lo s e r l im ita tio n s q u e s tio n . A s M r. O m ar-M u h am m ad p u ts i t, this case p rese n ts th e re q u isi te “e x tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance ” underR ul e 60( b) ( 6) becaus e of the obvi ous i ncorr ectnes s of the d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s lim ita tio n s a n a lysis in 2 0 0 0 c o rr e c te d b yS e rr a n o in 2 0 0 4 . E ven i f w e fe l tabl e t o di s r egar d the Supr eme C ourt ’ s gui dance i n G onzal ez on the bas i s of s uch a f i ne di s t i nct i on, w e ar e unabl e t o acc eptthe pr emi s e on w h ich M r. O m ar-M u h am m ad ’s arg u m en t i s b ase d . T h at i s, w e c an n o t say , as M r. O m ar-M u h am m ad w o u ld h av e u s, that itw as o b v iou s b efo re S erran o to all com ers thata 15- dayt ol l i ng per i od underA E D PA w as r equi r ed af t era fi nal di s pos i t i on by th e N e w M e x ic o S u p re m e C o u rt .Si m i l ar l y , tw o of the thr ee out - of- ci r cui tcas es ci t ed as s uppor t i ng 1 author i tyi n Ser r ano w ere d ec ided af ter th e d istri ct co u rtd ism issed M r. O m arM u h a m m a d ’s h a b e a s p e titio n . See Se r r ano , 383 F. 3d at1185 ( ci t i ng Jones v. Na g le , 3 4 9 F .3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 0 8 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); Wi l l i am s v. B r uton , 299 F. 3d 981, 9 8 3 -8 4 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); Sw artz v. Meyers , 2 0 4 F . 3 d 4 1 7 , 4 2 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 )). - 7 - B yw ayof exa m pl e, M r . O m ar - M uhamm ad, r epr es ent ed bycouns el , never n o ted s u ch an all eg ed lyo b v iou s erro r at an yti m e in th e m o re tha n sev en y ea rs betw een the fi l i ng of hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on on A ugus t6, 1997, and our deci s i on i n Serr ano i n Sept ember2004, even w hi l e he di d r ai s e manyothert ol l i ng ar gum ent s . N ei therdi d anyof the manyj udges w ho r evi ew ed hi s pet i t i on not i ce th e a rg u m e n t h e n o w se e k s to ra ise . B u t, pe rh a p s o f e v e n g re a tersig n ifica n c e still, th e d istric t co u rt’s in terp re tatio n o f A E D P A w a s a t th e tim e n o t o b v io u sly fo rec lose d b yestab li sh ed T en th C ir cu itlaw as M r. O m ar-M u h am m ad su g g ests. In fa c t, as th e S e rra n o o p in io n m a k e s c lea r, th e re w a s n o e sta b lish e d T e n th C irc u it l aw on thi s s peci fi c t opi c atthe t i m e the di s tr i ctcourtrul ed. I ndeed, i n Serr ano w e r el i ed al m os texcl us i vel yon ourpr i orhol di ng i n G i bs on v. K l i nger , 232 F. 3d 7 9 9 (20 0 0 ), w h ich itsel f w as d ec ided af ter th e d istri ct co u rtd ism issed M r. O m arM uhamm ad’ s habea s pet i t i on, and w hi ch expr es s l yr ecogni zed thati taddr es s ed a 1 th e n - u n r e s o l v e d q u e s t i o n o f l a w i n th e T e n th Ci r c u i t . S e e i d . a t8 0 3 - 0 4 ( “ I n Ro we v. L eM as t er , [225 F. 3d 1173, 1174 ( 10th C i r . 2000) , ] . . . [b] ecaus e w e foc us ed our inq u iryo n an o ther toll ing q u esti o n , w e d id n o t spe cifica ll yan aly ze . . . [if], r egar dl es s of w hethera pet i t i oneractual l yappea l s a deni al of a pos t - convi ct i on appl i cat i on, the l i m i t at i ons per i od i s t ol l ed dur i ng the per i od i n w hi ch the- 8 -

pet i t i onercoul d have s oughtan appe al unders t at e l aw . ”) . M or eover , the S err ano decis i on w as not r eache d solel yun der T enth C i rcui tpreceden t , bu tal so depende d on an i nt erpr et at i on of N ew M exi co l aw and the N ew M exi co R ul es of A p p e llate P ro c e d u re , se e S e rra n o , 3 8 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 7 , n e ith e r o f w h ich w a s ra ise d in th is c o n tex t b e fo re th e d istric t co u rt in 2 0 0 0 . F o r a ll th e se re a so n s, w e a re u n a b le t o agr ee w i th M r . O m ar - M uhamm ad thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i nt erpr et at i on i n 2000 of an ( uncont es t ed) as pectof the A E D PA l i m i t at i ons per i od w as unr eas onabl e at th e tim e , le t a lo n e c o n tr a ry to e s ta b lis h e d T e n th C ir c u it la w . * * * A s d id the d istri ct co u rt , w e find that w e a re p rec lud ed fro m affo rdin g M r. O m a r-M u h a m m a d th e re lief h e se e k s b yv irtu e o f

th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in G o n z a lez . F o r th a t re a so n , w e d e n yh is a p p lica tio n fo r a C O A a n d d ism iss th is a p p e a l. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

N ei l M . G or s uch C i r cui tJ udge