T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T W I LLI A M LA RRY W EA V ER, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF T HE ST ATE O F M O N T A N A ; e t a l., R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 36057 D . C . N o . 9 : 0 6 - c v - 0 0 0 9 4 - D WM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na D ona l d W . M ol l oy , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 2, 2010

P or t l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: P A E Z , T A L L M A N an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W i l l i a m L a rry W e a ve rf i l e d ape t i t i on f

orf e de r a l habe a s r e l i e f

unde rthe A nt i -T errori sm and E ff ec t i ve D ea th P enal ty A ct(“ A E D P A ”) af t erthe on e- ye ar st atut e of l i m i t at i on s had run. 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(d)(1). H e a rgues thatthi s c ou rt ca n n on ethel es s hea r hi s c l ai m s bec ause he can est abl i sh hi s a ctual i nn ocence, 

# FI LED MA R 12 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

w h ic h h e c o n te n d s e q u itab ly to lls th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld th a t W e a v e rd id n o t m a k e as u f f ic ie n t s h o w in g o f

a c tu a l in n o c e n c e a n d a c c o r d in g ly d ism isse d h is p etit io n as ti m e- b ar re d . W e r ev iew d e n o v o th e d istrict co u rt’s ru lin g s o n W e a v e r ’s s h o w in g o f a c tu a l in n o c e n c e a n d o n h is e n title m e n t to e q u itab le to llin g . Se e H o u s e v . B e ll , 547 U . S . 518, 539–40 ( 2006) (a ctual in n o c e n c e ) ; M

alc olm v . P ay ne , 2 8 1 F .3 d 9 5 1 , 9 5 5

– 5 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( e q u itab le t o l l i n g ) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f i rm. U nd er Sc h lu

p v . D e lo , a habeas pet i t i on erca n o verc om e ast at e procedural ba rt o r e l i e f

by m a ki ng a“ ga t e w a y ” s how i ng of “ a c tua l i nnoc e nc e . ” 513 U . S . 298, 31 6 (19 95 ). Iti s a n o pen q uest i on i n thi s c i rc ui tw hether ashow i ng of ac tual in n o c e n c e c a n s im ila r ly e x c u s e af a ilu r e to c o m p ly w ith A E D P A ’s o n e - y e a rs ta tu te o f l i m i t a t i o n s . We d o n o tr e s o l v e th a tq u e s t i o n h e r e , h o we v e r , b e c a u s e we concl ud e thatW ea ver has no tm ade a n adequ at e s ho w i ng of ac tual i nn ocence under the Sc hlup s t a nda r d. Sc hlup a llo w s af

e d e r a l h ab e a s p e titio n e rto o b ta in r e v ie w o f p r o c e d u r a lly defaul t ed cl ai m s i f he pre se nt s “ new re l i abl e e vi dence— w hether i tbe excul pat ory sc i ent i fi c e vi dence, trustw orthy ey ew i tness ac coun t s, or cr i t i ca l ph ys i ca l evi dence— thatw as no tpres ent ed attri al ” a nd thates t abl i shes that“ i ti s m ore l i ke l y tha n nottha tno r e a s onabl e j ur orw oul d ha ve f ound pe t i t i one rgui l ty be y ond3

a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” Id . at32 4, 32 7. A l tho ug h W ea ver off er s s om e new evi dence t endi ng t o u nd er cutthe cr edi bi l i ty of the st at e’ s keyw i tness agai nsthi m and o ther n e w e v id e n c e te n d in g to c o rr o b o r a te o th e r s ’ in c r im in a tin g s ta te m e n ts , th is evi dence does notsi gn i fi ca nt l y di ff erfr om the evi dence thatthe j ury c on si dere d at tr ia l. W e th e r e f

o r e c o n c lu d e th a t th is n e w e v id e n c e d o e s n o t m a k e it “m o r e lik e ly th a n n o t th a t n o r e a s o n ab le ju r o r ” w o u ld h a v e c o n v ic te d h im . I d. at32 7. E ven consi deri ng the evi dence thatthe di stri ctcourtdecl i ned t o con si der, w e f i nd that W ea ver c anno tes t abl i sh hi s a ctual i nn ocence under Sc hlup . W e the r e f or e do not r e a c h W e a ve r ’ s c l a i m tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ti m pr ope r l y l i m i t e d the s c ope of e v id e n c e th a t h e c o u ld p r e s e n t. B ec ause w e deny W ea ver’ s gat ew ayac tual i nn ocence c l ai m , w e do n otre ac h the go vernm ent ’ s a rgum entthatthe di stri ctcourterroneou sl y gra nt ed W ea ver a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g in c o n tr a v e n tio n o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) . AF F I R ME D.