NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 18

- 2161

_____________ MARK AQUILINA ,

Appellant

v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JER SEY; ADMINISTRATOR OF NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON

______________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (District Court No. 2

- 18

- cv - 01218) District Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares

______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

May 21, 2020

______________ Before: McKEE, BIBAS, and NYGAARD , Circuit Judges

.

(Opinion filed: September 9, 2020 )

_____________________ OPINION *

_____________________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

McKEE, Circuit Judge

. Mark Aquilina appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Aquilina challenge d his judgment of conviction for murder and related offenses based on an alleged involuntary confession. We granted a certificate of appealability for his untimely habeas petition due to his claim of actual innocence. For
the reasons that follow , we will affi rm the district court

. 2 Aquilina bases his claim of actual innocence on a medical opinion that his
confession was coerced , which was appended to his Post

- Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition. In Reeves v. Fayette SCI , 3 we considered a § 2254 petition seeking relief under the actual innocence exception to procedural default set forth in Schlup v.
Delo 4 as applied to untimely petitions in McQuiggin v. Perkins. 5 We explained in Reeves that for an untimely petition to be excused under Sc hlup , “the petitioner must present new, reliable evidence showing it is more li kely than not that no reasonable juror would
have voted to convict him.” 6 The psychiatrist’s letter, as noted by the state courts considering Aquilina’s PCRA petition, did not speak to whether his confession was false

an d had no probative value to his factual innocence

. Indeed under New Jersey state law, false confession expert testimony is not admissible as to the ultimate question of guilt or

2 The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253

. 3 897 F.3d 154 , 157 (3d Cir. 2018). 4 513 U.S. 298 (1995). 5 569 U.S. 383 (2013). 6 Reeves , 897 F.3d at 157 (citing Schlup , 513 U.S. at 324).3

innocence

. 7 Thus, even if Aquilina’s confession was coerced

— an allegation that we do not take lightly

— as to the actual innocence inquiry, the record here would still not justify granting relief. Moreover, although the actual innocence standard “does not require absolute

c ertainty about the petitioner’s guilt or innocence,” we must bear in mind “all the evidence, old an d new,” and the evidence presented at trial was nevertheless sufficient to
allow a reasonable juror to convict Aquilina. 8 Accordingly, we are not here pre sented
with the “extraordinary” case of “a petition present[ing] evidence of innocence so strong
that a court cannot have confidence in the outcome of the trial . . .” 9 For the foregoing reasons , we will affirm the district court’s dismissal of Aquilina’s habeas petition.

7 State of New Jersey v. Rosales , 9 88 A.2d 459 , 470 ( N.J. 2010 ) ( reiterating the principle that “expert witnesses may testify to a witness’s or defendant’s mental disorder and the hypothetical effect of that disorder. Expert witnesses may not, however, render an opinion on the defendant’s veracity or reliability of a confession . . . [which] is a matter in the jury’s exclusive province”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ; N.J. R. Evid. 702, 703. 8 House v. Bell , 547 U.S. 518, 538 (2006) (inte r nal quotation marks and citation omitted)

. 9 McQuiggin , 569 U.S. at 393, 401 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

.