A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### Ju ly25,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT M AR VI N TI LLETT, P eti ti o n er, v. J O E B O O K E R , W a r d e n , F MC L e x i n g t o n , KY; DE P AR T M E NT OF HOMEL AND S E CU RI T Y; I M M I GR AT I ON & NA TUR ALI ZATI ON SERVI CE, R espon den t s. N o. 06- 9543 ( N o. A 34- 496- 797) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , EBEL , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

T hi s cas e w as or i gi nal l yfi l ed i n O ct ober2005 i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof K entuckyas a pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus chal l engi ng a fi nal or derof deport at i on i s s ued byt he B oar d of- 2-

I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) i n 1994. T he di s tr i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the habe as p e t i t i o n fo rl a c k o f

j u r i s d i c t i o n h o l d i n g th a tth e RE AL I D Ac to f 2 0 0 5 ( RI DA) “cl ear l ydepr i ved thi s C our tof j ur i s di ct i on overthe pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s by amendi ng the j udi ci al r evi ew pr ovi s i ons of s ect i on 242 of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct , t o m ake a pet i t i on forr evi ew i n the fe der al cour t s of appe al s t he s ol e means of r evi ew of a f i nal i m m i gr at i on or derof r emoval , deport at i on, or excl us i on. ” Ti l l et tv. B ooker , N o. C i v. A . 05- C V - 406- J M H , 2005 W L 2736740, at *2 ( E . D . K y . O ct . 24, 2005) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . M r . T i l l et tappea l ed the di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s d e c is io n to th e U n ite d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r t h e S ix th C ir c u it. O n A pr i l 23, 2006, the Si xth C i r cui ti s s ued an or deraff i r m i ng the di s tr i ct court ’ s di s m i s s al . T he Si xth C i r cui t , how ever , cons trued M r . T i l l et t ’ s habea s p eti ti o n as a p eti ti o n fo r rev iew an d d ec ided to tr an sfe r th e c ase to this co u rt b e c a u s e th is c o u rt is th e p ro p e r v e n u e in w h ic h to file th e p e titio n fo r r e v ie w . R el y i ng on t he tr ans ferpr ovi s i on i n 28 U . S. C . § 1631, the Si xth C i r cui tconcl uded thattr ans ferr i ng the ca s e t o thi s cour tw oul d be i n the i nt er es tof j us t i ce. T he Si xth C i r cui tdi d not e thatther e w as a ques t i on as t o w hetherthe pet i t i on for re v ie w w a s tim e ly, b u t s ta te d th a t th is c o u rt s h o u ld d e c id e th e tim e lin e s s is s u e . O n M ay1, t he pet i t i on forr evi ew w as fi l ed i n thi s cour t . T he governm ent fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on beca us e the pet i t i on forr evi ew w as unt i m el y . M r . T i l l ettdi d notfi l e a r es pons e t o the mot i on. W e conc l ude that- 3-

M r . T i l l ett ’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew i s unt i m el yand di s m i s s the ca s e forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. U nderR I D A , i f a 28 U . S. C . § 2241 habea s cas e cha l l engi ng a fi nal or derof r emoval w as pendi ng i n the di s tr i ctcour tas of M ay11, 2005, thatcas e mustbe tr a n s fe rr e d to th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls a n d tr e a te d a s a p e titio n fo r r e v ie w . See RI DA, P u b . L . N o . 1 0 9 -1 3 , § 1 0 6 (c ), 1 1 9 S ta t. 2 3 1 , 3 1 1 (2 0 0 5 ), r epr i nt ed i n 8 U. S . C. § 1252 not e. C as es tr ans ferr ed underthi s pr ovi s i on ar e nots ubj ectt o the ju risd ictio n a l th irty -d a ytim e lim it t o file a p e tit io n fo r re v iew , w h ich is s e t fo rth in 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 1 ). See i d. ; Medel l i n- R eye s v. G onz al es , 435 F. 3d 721, 723 ( 7th C i r . 2006) . A s t he Seventh C i r cui texpl ai ned: [A ] l l col l at er al pr ocee di ngs pendi ng on M ay11, 2005, w hen the R eal I D A ctt ook effect , and tr ans ferr ed t o court s of appe al s under § 106( c) , m us tbe tr eat ed as t i m el ypet i t i ons forr evi ew , no m at t er h o w lo n g it h a s b e e n s in c e th e B o a rd re n d e re d its d e c is io n . C ol l at er al pr ocee di ngs fi l ed on oraft erM ay11 . . . w i l l be di s m i s s ed outr i ght ; t he w i ndow forbel at ed j udi ci al r evi ew has cl os ed. Id. a t 7 2 3 -2 4 . M r . T i l l etti s notel i gi bl e t o benef i tfr om R I D A ’ s exce pt i on t o the thi r ty - dayt i m e l i m i tforfi l i ng a pet i t i on forr evi ew . M r . T i l l et t ’ s pet i t i on for re v iew w a s tra n sfe rre d p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 3 1 , n o t th e tra n sfe r p ro v isio n in § 106( c) of R I D A . T he Si xth C i r cui tcoul d nottr ans ferthe pet i t i on forr evi ew pur s uantt o R I D A beca us e M r . T i l l et t ’ s habea s pet i t i on w as fi l ed af t erM ay11, 2 0 0 5 . R ID A ’s tra n sfe r p ro v isio n is o n lya p p lica b le to h a b e a s p e tit io n s p e n d in g in- 4-

a d is tr ic t c o u rt a s o f

M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 5 . See R ID A § 1 0 6 (c); C hen v. G onz al es , 435 F .3 d 7 8 8 , 7 9 0 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). A s a re su lt, M r. T ill e tt’s c a se re m a in s s u bjec t to 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 1) , w hi ch r equi r es that“[t ] he pet i t i on forr evi ew m us tbe fi l ed n o t l ater tha n 3 0 d ay s af ter th e d ate o f th e final o rde r of rem o v al. ” M r. T il let t’ s fi nal or derof r emoval w as ent er ed on O ct ober27, 1994. T he pet i t i on forr evi ew is th e re fo re u n tim e ly an d th is c o u rt la c k s ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r i t. See Na h a tch e v ska v . A sh c ro ft , 3 1 7 F . 3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 2 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T he p et i t i on for r eview i s D ISM ISS E D and peti t i on er’ s m oti on for r el ease is D E N IE D a s m o o t. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt PerC ur i am