T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. 

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

### A p ril17,2007 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 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 1360 v . (D . o f C o lo .) W I LLI A M D EA N D A V I S,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D . C . N os . 06- C V - 1147- L T B and 0 3 - CR- 1 1 - LT B)

OR DER * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. W i l l i am D ean D avi s , a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , seeks a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty( C O A ) thatw oul d al l ow hi m t o appea l fr om the di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . See 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( B ) . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatM r . D avi s has fai l ed t o m ake “a subst anti al show i ng of the den i al of a c on st i tuti on al ri gh t , ” w e den yhis request fo r a C O A a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ). Backg r ound O n A pr i l 11, 2003, M r . D avi s pl eade d gui l tyt o pos s es s i on of m ethamphet ami ne w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1)-2-

and ( b) ( 1) ( vi i i ) and t o pos s es s i on of a f i r earm dur i ng comm i s s i on of drug tr aff i cki ng i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) . H i s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal on J ul y9, 2003. H i s br otherand co- defe ndant , D on W ayne D avi s , di d notpl ead gui l ty , buti ns t ead c hal l enged the admi s s i on of the evi dence obt ai ned i n the s ear ch. I n M ar ch 2006, the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado found thatthe w arr antauthor i zi ng l aw enfor cementt o s ear ch the D avis ’s ho m e w as i nv al i d an d ex cl ud ed the evidence o btai ned i n the sear ch. A s a re s u lt, th e g o v e rn m e n t d ro p p e d th e c h a rg e s a g a in s t D o n . O n Ju n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 , n o t q u ite th re e y e a rs a f ter h is c o n v ictio n b e c a m e fin a l, M r . Da v i s fi l e d a p e t i t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 5 r a i s i n g two c l a i ms . He con t end ed thatl aw enfo rcem ent vi olat ed h i s const i tuti on al ri gh tagainst unr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es and thathe r ece i ved i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed hi s pet i t i on as unt i m el ybeca us e i tw as not fi l ed w i thi n the A E D PA one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T he courtal s o hel d that M r . D avi s w as notent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng. D i s cus s i on A habea s pet i t i onerm ayappea l the deni al of hi s § 2255 m ot i on onl yi f the d is tr ic t c o u rto r t h is C o u rtfir s t is s u e s a C O A . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 1 )( B ). A C O A w i l l i s s ue “onl yi 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 r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . T o m ake s uch a sh o w in g , a p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te th a t “r e a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld d e b a te-3-

w hether. . . the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm annerorthat the i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d further . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 483- 84 ( 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . W e fi nd no r oom t o debat e her e. A E D P A re q u ire s a fe d e ra l p riso n e r to file fo r fe d e ra l h a b e a s re lief w ith in o n e y e a r a f

ter h is c o n v ictio n b e c o m e s fin a l o r w ith in o n e y e a r a f ter “ th e fa c ts s uppor t i ng the cl ai m orcl ai m s pr es ent ed coul d have be en di s cover ed thr ough the exer ci s e of due di l i gence . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2255( 4) . T hough the one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons m aybe s ubj ectt o equi t abl e t ol l i ng, s uch r el i ef “ i s onl yavai l abl e w hen a n in m a te d ili g e n tlyp u rsu e s h is c laim s a n d d e m o n stra tes th a t th e fa ilu re to tim e ly fi l e w as caus ed byextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s bey ond hi s contr ol . ” Mars h v. Soar es , 2 2 3 F . 3 d 1 2 1 7 , 1 2 2 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T he fa ct s s uppor t i ng M r . D avi s ’ s cl ai m s of an unc ons t i tut i onal s ear ch and i neffect i ve assi st ance o f cou nsel cou l d h ave b een d i scovered thr ou gh the ex erci se of due di l i gence atanyt i m e af t erhi s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal . M r . D avi s ar gues th a t ig n o ra n c e o f

th e filin g d e a d lin e p re v e n te d h im f ro m filin g h is p e titio n e a rl ie r. H o w ev er, “i g n o ran ce o f th e law , ev en fo r an inca rce rated p ro se p eti ti o n er, gener al l ydoes notexcus e pr om ptfi l i ng. ” Id . at1220 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons o m itt e d ). H e a lso a rg u e s th a t b e c a u se th e c o u rt m a iled h im th e re q u isite fo rm s to fi l l outhi s § 2255 pet i t i on, i teffect i vel ygave hi m perm i s s i on t o fi l e s uch a p e tit io n re g a rd les s o f

A E D P A c o n stra in ts. H e c ites n o a u th o rityto su p p o rt th is-4-

pr opos i t i on. M er el ypr ovi di ng a pet i t i onerw i th courtform s does notgr ant perm i s s i on forl at e fi l i ng of a ha beas pet i t i on. R eas onabl e j ur i s t s w oul d agr ee thatthe A E D PA one- y earfi l i ng deadl i ne for ecl os es M r . D avi s ’ s habea s corpus pet i t i on. C oncl usi on A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY M r . D avi s ’ s r eques tfora C O A and D I SM I SS th is appea l . A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris i s al s o DENI ED . E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge