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

### M ar c h13,2007 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 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. LA M A R A N TW A U N W I LLI A M S, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 2328 ( D . C . N os . C I V - 06- 09- J P/ R L P and

CR - 01 - 13 35 J P) (D .N .M .)

OR DER DENYI NG A CERTI FI CATE OF APPE ALABI LI TY B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. L amarW i l l i ams, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, s eeks a ce rt i fi cat e of appea l abi l i ty( “C O A ”) t o appea l the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2255 h ab e a s p e tit io n . F o r su b sta n tiallyth e sa m e re a so n s s e t fo rth b yth e d istric t co u rt, w e DE NY a C O A and D I SM I SS . W i l l i ams w as convi ct ed of pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e over50 gr ams of coc ai ne bas e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( A ) and sen tenc ed to 2 6 2 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t on F eb rua ry1 4 , 2 0 0 3 . T h is co u rt aff i rm ed hi s convi ct i on on di r ectappea l , U ni t ed St at es v. W i l l i ams, 356 F. 3d 1268 ( 2004) , and the Supr eme C ourtdeni ed hi s pet i t i on forcert i or ar i on O ct oberA pet i t i onerm aynotappea l the deni al of habe as r el i ef unde r§ 2255 1 w ith o u t a C O A . 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(1)(A ). A C O A m aybe i s s ued “onl yi 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 . ” § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). T h is re q u ire s W ill iam s to sh o w “ th a t re a so n ab le ju rists c o u ld debat e w hether( or , forthatm att er , agr ee that ) the pet i t i on s houl d have be en re so lv e din a d iffe re n t m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d further . ” Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) (qu o tat ion s o m itted). - 2 - 4 , 2 0 0 4 . H e fil ed h is § 2 2 5 5 p eti ti o n o n Jan u ary4 , 2 0 0 6 . T h e d istri ct co u rt d e n ie dh is p e titio n a s u n tim e ly an dd e n ie dh is s u b s e q u e n t r e q u e s t fo r a C O A . W ill iam s n o w se e k s a C O A f ro m th is c o u rt. 1 W i l l i ams conc edes thathi s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal on O ct ober4, 2004. A c c o rd in g ly, h e h a d u n til O c to b e r 4 , 2 0 0 5 to file a h ab e a s p e titio n . See 28 U . S. C . § 2255 ( pr ovi di ng a one- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od fr om the dat e a c onvi ct i on becomes fi nal ) . A l though W i l l i ams’ pet i t i on w as fi l ed thr ee months aft erthat d a te , h e u rg e s th e c o u rtto e q u ita b ly to ll th e lim ita tio n s p e ri o d . E q u itab le to lli n g “ is o n lya v a ilab le w h e n a n in m a te d ili g e n tlyp u rsu e s h is cl ai m s and demonstr at es thatthe fa i l ur e t o t i m el yfi l e w as caus ed by extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s bey ond hi s contr ol . ” M ar s h v. Soar es , 223 F. 3d 1217, 1220 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . W i l l i ams cl ai m s thathe w as deni ed ac ces s t o l egal m at er i al s w hi l e hi s pr i s on w as i n “l ockdow n” betw een Sept ember17, 2005 and O c to b e r 3 , 2 0 0 5 . If

w e w e re to to ll th e lim itatio n s p e rio dfo r th e d u ra tio n o f th is l o c k d o wn , Wi l l i a ms ’ ap p l i c a t i o n wo u l ds t i l l b e mo r e th a n two mo n th s l a t e . He a ls o a s s e rt s th a t p ri s o n o ffic ia ls s e iz e dh is le g a l d o c u m e n ts d u ri n g th e lo c k d o w n .- 3 -

S u c h c o n fisc a tio n m a yju stif yto lli n g d u rin g th e p e rio dh e w a s d e p riv e da c c e ss to th e d o c u m e n ts, b u t W ill iam s n e v e r c laim s h e w a s d ili g e n t in a ttem p tin g to re triev e th e d o c u m e n ts. F in a lly , W ill iam s a rg u e s th a t eq u itab le to lli n g is ap p ro p ri a te b e c a u s e o f th e d iffic u ltie s h e h a din o b ta in in g h is tr ia l tr a n s c ri p ts . H ow ever , none of the del ay s he ci t es cons t i tut e “e xtr aor di naryci r cumst ance s b e y o n dh is c o n tr o l.” Id . A ccordi ng l y , W i l l i am s’ requestfor a C O A i s DE NI ED a n dh is a p p e a l is DI S M I S S ED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge