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 

### M ar c h 27,2007 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 RO NA LD J ENN I NG S F OG LE,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 1413 v . (D . C o lo .) WARDE N AL E S T E P a n d J OHN SU TH ER S, R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 0 1 4 9 1 - P S F - P AC)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. R onal d J enni ngs Fogl e, a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , seeks a cert i fi cat e of appeal 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 4 . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(1)(A ). B ec au se w e c o n clud e tha t M r. Fogl e 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. Id.-2- Backg r ound O n O ct ober23, 2000, M r . Fogl e pl eade d gui l tyt o tw o count s of aggr avat ed r o b b e ry , a n d wa s s e n t e n c e d b yth e J e ffe r s o n Co u n tyd i s tr i c tc o u r tt o two concurr ent32- y eart erm s , t o run concurr ent l yw i th a 66- y ears ent ence i m pos ed for a c o n v ictio n in a n o th e r c o u n ty . T h o u g h h e d id n o t file a d ire c t ap p e a l f ro m h is se n ten c e , o n M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 1 h e filed a p e tit io n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief in sta te c o u r t . M r . F o g l e d i d n o tp r o p e r l ya p p e a l th i s d e c i s i o n t o th e Co l o r a d o S u p r e me C our t . O n M ar ch 10, 2003, he fi l ed anothers t at e pos t - convi ct i on m ot i on. A l l of M r. F o g le’ s c laim s in th e M a rc h 1 0 p e tit io n w e re rejec ted b yth e C o lo ra d o sta te tr i al court , and the C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s ( “C C A ”) aff i rm ed. T he C ol or ado S u p re m e C o u rtd e n ie d c e rt io ra ri re v ie w o n J u ly 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 . O n A ugus t1, 2005, M r . Fogl e fi l ed a § 2254 pe t i t i on i n 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 al l egi ng ( 1) hi s s ent ence w as i m pr oper l yenhanc ed; ( 2) he r ece i ved i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ; ( 3) he w as den i ed an evident i aryheari ng on his st at e cou rtpo st -convict i on rel i ef pe t i t i on s; ( 4) the C C A deni ed hi m a l i m i t ed r emand and then rul ed thathi s cl ai m s w er e not properl ybefo re the co urt ; and (5) the C C A un fai rl yden i ed h i s Appr endic laim beca us e he w as pr ocee di ng pr o s e. I n a det ai l ed opi ni on, the magi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended thatthe di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s al l cl ai m s as unt i m el ybeca us e the pet i t i on w as fi l ed af

t erexpi r at i on of the one–y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons underthe A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ct( A E D PA ) . A l t ernat i vel y , the-3-

m agi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended thateac h cl ai m be di s m i s s ed on the mer i t s . T he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed the r ecomm endat i ons of the magi s tr at e j udge and di s m i s s ed th e p e titio n w ith p reju d ic e . D i s cus s i on A p ri s o n e r m a ya p p e a l th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n fo r r e lie f

u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 o n ly if

th e 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 . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( A ) . A C O A w i l l i s s ue “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 . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . I n or der to m a k e su c h 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 coul d debat e w hether. . . the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r ent 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 d e se rv e e n c o u ra g e m e n t to pr ocee d further . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). T he A E D PA r equi r es a s t at e pr i s onert o fi l e foranyfede r al habea s r el i ef w i thi n one y earaft erhi s convi ct i on becomes fi nal “bythe conc l us i on of di r ect re v ie w o r t h e e x p ir a tio n o f th e tim e fo r s e e k in g s u c h re v ie w .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) ( 2000) . T he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s t ol l ed w hi l e pet i t i oner s pur s ue stat e p o st- co n v ict ion claim s. § 2 2 4 4 (d)(2 ). U n d e r C o lo ra d o law , M r. F o g le h a d fo rty -fiv e d a y s to d ire c tlya p p e a l h is convi ct i on, C ol o. A pp. R . 4( b) ( 1) , w hi ch he c hos e nott o do. A ft erthe t i m e for d ir ec t app ea l pas sed , the A E D P A statu te of li m it ati o n s ran fo r 15 4 d ay s u n ti l M r.-4-

F o g le filed h is first p e tit io n fo r sta te p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief. B e c a u se M r. F o g le w as then pur s ui ng hi s cl ai m s i n s t at e court , the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w as t ol l ed unt i l the t i m e pas s ed forhi m t o appea l the C C A ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on. T he A E D P A c lo c k th e n ra n f ro m Ju ly2 7 , 2 0 0 2 u n til M r. F o g le filed h is s e c o n d sta te pos t - convi ct i on m ot i on on M ar ch 10, 2003— an addi t i onal 225 day s . H i s s econd s t at e pet i t i on w as pendi ng i n s t at e courtthr ough A ugus t5, 2005, fi ve day s aft er he fi l ed hi s § 2254 pet i t i on i n fede r al court . B ythi s t i m e, M r . Fogl e had e x c e e d e d th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s b yfo u rt e e n d a y s . M r . Fogl e ar gues thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons s houl d have be en t ol l ed thr ough A ugus t14, 2002 r atherthan J ul y27, 2002 beca us e he f i l ed an appl i cat i on fo r c e rtio ra ri w ith th e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt a f terth e C C A d e n ied m o st o f h is M ay11 peti t i on . F or the p urposes of A E D P A , “an ap pli cat i on i s ‘p rop e rly fi l ed’ w hen i t s del i veryand ac cept ance ar e i n compl i ance w i th the appl i cabl e l aw s and rul es governi ng fi l i ngs . ” A rtu z v . B e n n e tt , 5 3 1 U .S . 4 , 8 (2 0 0 0 ). M r. F o g le d id notpr oper l yfi l e hi s appl i cat i on forcert i or ar i beca us e he fai l ed t o pr ovi de the a p p ro p ria te n u m b e r o f c o p ies to th e c o u rt. B e c a u se M r. F o g le d id n o t co m p ly w i th C ol or ado fi l i ng rul es , hi s i m pr operfi l i ng di d nott ol l the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons forfi l i ng hi s § 2254 pet i t i on. M r . Fogl e al s o cont ends thatthe di s tr i ctcourtm i s cal cul at ed the numberof day s beca us e i tfai l ed t o t ake i nt o acc ountthe “mai l box rul e” i n det erm i ni ng w hen hi s courtdocument s w er e fi l ed. U nderthi s rul e, a pr i s oner ’ s paper s ar e dee m ed-5-

filed w h e n h e g iv e s th e m to a p riso n o fficia l ra th e r th a n w h e n th e ya re a c tu a lly file d w ith th e c o u rt . Hous t on v. Lack , 4 8 7 U .S . 2 6 6 , 2 7 6 (1 9 8 8 ); Ha ll v. Sc o tt , 292 F. 3d 1264, 1266 n. 1 ( 10th C i r . 2002) . T o t ake a dvant age of the “mai l box rul e” apr i s onerm us tdocumenthi s us e of the l egal m ai l s y s t em or s i gn a n o tar ize d a ffid a v it statin g th e d a te h e d e p o site d th e m a il i n th e re g u larm a il s y s te m . P r i ce v . P hi l

pot , 4 2 0 F . 3 d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 6 6

– 6 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h o u g h M r. Fogl e cl ai m s he pr ovi ded hi s M ar ch 10, 2003 m ot i on t o pr i s on offi ci al s on M ar ch 1, 2003, he makes onl yuns w orn al l egat i ons t o thateffect . M or eover , even a c c e p tin g M r. F o g le’ s a rg u m e n t th a t h is d o c u m e n ts s h o u ld b e d e e m e d filed w ith the courton M ar ch 1, 2003, he s t i l l fi l ed hi s pet i t i on atl eas tfi ve day s aft erthe s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s h a d ru n . M r. F o g le a lso a rg u e s th a t th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s s h o u ld b e e q u itab ly to lled . T h o u g h th e o n e -y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s m a yb e su bjec t to e q u itab le t o l l i n g , s u c h r e l i e f

“ i s o n l ya v a i l a b l e wh e n a n i n ma t e d i l i g e n t l yp u r s u e s h i s c l a i ms an d d em o n str ates tha t th e fail u re to ti m elyfil e w as c au sed b yex tr ao rdin ary ci 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 (1 0 th C i r . 2000) . M r . Fogl e cl ai m s forthe fi r s tt i m e i n thi s appea l thatthe “extr aor di naryci r cumst ance ” thatw arr ant s t ol l i ng her e i s the i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el he r ece i ved af t erhi s or i gi nal convi ct i on, w hi ch pr event ed hi m fr om fi l i ng an appe al t o hi s or i gi nal convi ct i on. H e fa i l ed t o r ai s e thi s i s s ue in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt , s o w e w ill n o t r e v ie w it o n a p p e a l. Un itedS ta tes v . Win drix ,T h e m a g istra te ju d g e a d d re ss e d h is fiv e c laim s in d e tail a n d fo u n d th e m to 1 b e w ith o u t m e rit. -6- 4 0 5 F .3 d 1 1 4 6 , 1 1 5 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). E v e n if M r. F o g le h a d p re se n ted th is c laim b e lo w , a n in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im w o u ld n o t e n title h im to e q u ita b le to llin g . See 28 U . S. C . § 2254( i ) ( “The i neffect i venes s ori ncompet ence of couns el dur i ng Feder al orSt at e col l at er al pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs s hal l notbe a gr ound for r el i ef i n a pr ocee di ng ar i s i ng under§ 2254. ”) M r . Fogl e has notpr es ent ed any extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s j us t i fy i ng the equi t abl e t ol l i ng of the s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s. B ec au se re aso n ab le j u ri sts co u ld n o t diffe r i n d eterm ining that M r. F o g le’s peti t i on i s unti m el y , w e need no treach the m eri t s of his cl ai m s. 1 C oncl usi on A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY M r . Fogl e’ s r eques tfora C O A and D I SM I SS th is a p p e a l. 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