* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted w ithout oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, exceptunder the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. T he court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R . 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 16 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LAWRENCE WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STEVE HARGETT, Warden,, Respondent-Appellee. No. 99-5177 (D.C. No. 98-CV-588-K) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY, EBEL and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
On January 11, 1996, Petitioner-Appellant Lawrence Walker (“Walker”) plead guilty to two counts assault and battery upon a police officer in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CF-95-2977. (See Doc. 10, Exh. A.) Walker did not pursue a direct appeal of his conviction.- 2 -

On January 16, 1998, Walker filed an application fo r post-conviction in Tulsa County District Court, arguing, in relevant p art, that he had been denied his constitutional right to direct appeal. (See id. , Exh. B.) The district court denied the application on April 6, 1998. (See id. , Exh. A.) Walker filed a timely appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, and thatcourt affirmed the district court order denying post-conviction relief on June 29, 1998. (See id. , Exh. C.) Walker filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the federal district court for the Northern Distric t of Oklahoma on August 7, 1998, seeking relief on the ground that he had been denied his right of direct appeal. (See Doc. 1.) Because Walker filed his federal habeas petition after April 24, 1996, his petition is governed by the pro visions of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). See Hooks v. Ward , 184 F.3d 1206, 1213 (10th Cir. 1999). The district court dismissed Walker’s petition o n the ground that it was filed outside of the one-yea r period of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and denied Walker a certific ate of appealability (“COA”). (See Doc. 14, 17.) Walker argues before this court that because the st ate trial court failed to inform him that he had a right of direct appeal at the time of his conviction, his state conviction did not become final for purposes of § 2244(d) until the date he discovered that he had a right to a direct appeal. (See Pet. Br.) Walker asserts- 3 -

that his petition for federal habeas relief is ther eby rendered timely. (See id. ) We find this argument to be without merit. We further conclude that Walker’s petition was filed outside the one-year period of l imitations for substantially the same reasons set forth in the order of the districtcourt dismissing Walker’s habeas petition. (See Doc. 14.) Because Walker has failed to make a “su bstantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” s ee 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we deny COA. The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge