FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 1, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD LESLIE WOOTON, II, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. JIMMY MARTIN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 18-5023 (D.C. No. 4:17-CV-00202-TCK-FHM) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before BACHARACH , MURPHY, and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

Petitioner, Richard Leslie Wooton, an Oklahoma state prisoner p roceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) so he can appeal the district court’s dismissal of the habeas corpus petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing no appeal may be taken from a final order disposing of a § 2254 pe tition unless the petitioner first obtains a COA).Wooton’s state conviction for possession of child pornography b ecame final on February 3, 2012. Even with statutory tolling, at the time Wooton filed his federal habeas petition on December 2, 2016, the one-year l imitations period set out in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“ AEDPA”) had expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (setting forth a statute of limitations for§ 2254 petitions). Respondent moved to dismiss the petition as time b arred. The district court concluded that Wooton’s § 2254 petition was filed outside the one-year limitations period established by the AEDP A. The court also concluded Wooton was not entitled to a new limitations period u nder 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B) or (d)(1)(D) and that he failed to identify anycircumstances that would support equitable tolling of the limitations period. See Miller v. Marr , 141 F.3d 976, 978 (10th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the court dismiss ed the § 2254 petition as untimely. To be entitled to a COA, Wooton must show “that jurists of reas on would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (holding that when a district court dismisses a habeas petition on procedural grounds, a peti tioner is entitled to a COA only if he shows both that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether he had stated a valid constitutional claim and debatabl e whether the district court’s procedural ruling was correct). This court re views the district

-2-court’s decision on equitable tolling of the limitations periodfor abuse of discretion. Burger v. Scott , 317 F.3d 1133, 1138 (10th Cir. 2003). After reviewing Wooton’s appellate brief and application for CO A, the district court’s order, and the entire record on appeal pursuan t to the framework set out by the Supreme Court, we conclude Wooton is not entitle d to a COA. Any reasonable jurist would regard Wooton’s § 2254 petition as unti mely and the record fully supports the district court’s conclusion that Woot on failed to demonstrate entitlement to equitable tolling. Because the district court’s resolution of Wooton’s § 2254 petition as untimely is not deserving of further proceedings or subject to a different resolution on appeal, Woo ton has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” and is not entitled to a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This court denies Wooton’s request for a COA and dismisses this appeal. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge

-3-