UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ HOMER JONES, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. LUKE PETTIGREW, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 21-6106 (D.C. No. 5:18- CV-00633-G) (W.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFIC ATE OF APPEALABILITY *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , BRISCOE , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ In June 2018, Petitioner-Appellant Home r Jones, a state prisoner proceeding
pro se, 1 petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U. S.C. § 2254 in federal district court challenging his April 1984 Oklahom a state criminal convictions. 2 The district court

* This order is not binding precedent ex cept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collatera l estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. A pp. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1 We construe a pro se appe llant’s complaint liberally. Gaines v. Stenseng , 292 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Bu t we won’t serve as his advocate. Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).

2 Jones alleges that his convictions were entered in April 1984, but other courts have determined that he entered his guilty plea in February 1985. See Jones v. Bear , No. CIV-19-141-G, 2019 WL 3422101, at *1 (W.D. Ok la. Apr. 17, 2019) (finding that Jones entered his guilty plea on the relevant counts in February 1985), report and recommendation adopted , No. CIV-19-141-G, 2019 WL 2715544 (W.D. Okla. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January 20, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 21-6106 Document: 010110634627 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 12 dismissed the petition as untimely because: (1 ) Jones filed the petition decades after the one-year limitations period for habeas claims had run, and (2) Jones wasn’t entitled to statutory or equ itable tolling. The district court also denied Jones a certificate of appealability (“COA”). Jones seeks to appeal the dismissal of his petition. But to do so he needs a
COA. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484–85 (2000). When, as here, a district court dismissed a petition on procedural grounds, a C OA will issue only if the petitioner shows that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 478. Jones has not met his burden. In his briefing, he restates his largely unintelligible arguments made before the dist rict court and baselessly asserts that he does not require a COA to appeal. He also fails to address th e timeliness of his petition or point to legal erro rs warranting reversal. And up on review of the district court’s thorough and well-reas oned order, we conclude that reasonable jurists wouldn’t debate the correctness of the district court’s decision that Jones’s petition was untimely. Thus, having jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(c)(1)(A), we deny Jones’s request for a COA and dismiss his appeal.

Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge
June 28, 2019). Whether the judgment was entered in 1984 or 19 85 does not affect our ruling, so this disc repancy is unimportant. Appellate Case: 21-6106 Document: 010110634627 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 2