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

### A u gu s t4,2006 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 R O Y L A M O N T E B O W M A N , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ant , N o. 06- 6053 v . ( D. C. No. 0 5 - CV - 9 5 4 - L) S AM CA L BO NE , Wa r d e n ; RO N WARD; a n d AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L O F T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O M A , (W . D . O k la .) R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. OR DER B efor e K E L L Y , M c K A Y , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ppel l anti s a s t at e pr i s oner , s eeki ng habea s r el i ef a nd chal l engi ng the exec ut i on of hi s s ent ence under28 U . S. C . § 2241. H e cl ai m s thathe w as deni ed due pr oces s i n connec t i on w i th a 1996 di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ng. A ppel l anthad b e e n p lac e d in a p re -p a ro le c o n d iti o n a l su p e rv isio n p ro g ra m in 1 9 9 1 , an d a f ter h is arrest an d m isco n d u ct co n v ict ion in 1 9 9 6 , h e w as n o t r eturn ed to the p rog ram . In 2000, A ppel l antexec ut ed a s t at e pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus . H e w as u n su c c e ss f

u l in sta te d istric t co u rt, an d th e O k lah o m a C o u rt o f C rim in a l A p p e a ls deni ed hi m r el i ef i n 2001. A ppel l anti ni t i at ed the pr es entact i on on A ugus t12, 2 0 0 5 . A m a g is tr a te ju d g e re c o m m e n d e d th a t h is p e titio n b e d e n ie d a s u n tim e ly.- 2-

R ep o rtan d R ec o m m en d ati o n , 7 (W . D . O k la. A u g . 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 ). T h e d istri ct co u rt adopt ed the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eporti n ful l and di s m i s s ed A ppel l ant ’ s pet i t i on as unt i m el y . O r der , 3 ( W . D . O kl a. J an. 8, 2006) . T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o deni ed A ppel l anta ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyi n an or deron February21, 2006. A one- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od appl i es i n s t at e pr i s oner s ’ habea s act i ons . 28 U . S. C . § 2241( d) ( 1) ( A ) - ( D ) ( 2000) . I n addi t i on, fede r al l aw pr ovi des thatthe lim itatio n s p e rio d is to lled fo r a “ p ro p e rlyfiled a p p lica tio n fo r S tate p o stconvi ct i on orothercol l at er al r evi ew . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2241( d) ( 2) ( 2000) . A s the m a g istra te ju d g e p ro p e rlyre c o m m e n d e d , A p p e llan t’s lim itatio n s p e rio d o n a ll habea s cl ai m s w oul d have be gun byM ay21, 2001 ( dat e of s t at e courtfi l i ng) , and ended on M ay21, 2002. R eportand R ecomm endat i on, at6. T her efor e, hi s fi l i ng of a ha beas pet i t i on i n 2005 i s unt i m el y . W e ar e al s o i n acc or d w i th the di s tr i ct c o u rt’s fin d in g th a t A p p e llan t d id n o t sa tisf yth e re q u ire m e n ts fo r e q u itab le t ol l i ng. O r der , at2. A ppel l antnow s eeks fr om thi s courta ce r t i fi cat e of appeal abi l i ty . T he iss u e s h e ra ise s o n a p p e a l ar e id e n tica l to th o se b ro u g h t b e fo re th e d istric t co u rt. T o gr anta ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty , A ppel l antm us tm ake a “s ubs t ant i al s h o w in g o f

th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ) ( 1 9 9 4 ). T o m e e t th is b u rd e n , A p p e llan t m u st d e m o n stra te “ th a t re a so n a b 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 d in 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- 3-

des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d further . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). W e h av e c are fu ll yrev iew ed A p p ell an t’ s b ri ef, the m ag istrate jud g e’s re c o m m e n d a tio n s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is p o s itio n , a n d th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l. N othi ng i n the fa ct s , the r ecor d on appea l , orPet i t i oner ’ s fi l i ng r ai s es an i s s ue w hi ch meet s ours t andar d forthe gr antof a c ert i fi cat e of appeal abi l i ty . For s ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons s etfor th bythe magi s tr at e j udge i n the R eportand R ecomm endat i on of A ugus t31, 2005, and the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der s of J anuary8, 2 0 0 6 , an d F e b ru a ry2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , w e c a n n o t sa y“ th a t re a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld d e b a te w h e th e r (o r, fo r th a t m a tter, a g re e th a t) th e p e tit io n sh o u ld h a v e b e e n re so lv e d in a di ffe r entm anner . ” Id. A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY Pet i t i oner ’ s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i tyand D I SM I SS th e a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge