UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT 

ERNEST BRIM, a/k/a Bernard Horne,

Petitioner–Appellant,

v.

ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, Colorado 

DOC Executive Director; JOHN 

SUTHERS, Attorney General of the State 

of Colorado,

Respondents–Appellees.

No. 09-1516

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-00429-ZLW)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. 

 Ernest Brim a/k/a Bernard Horne, a Colorado state prisoner proceeding pro se, 

seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

habeas petition. For substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court, we deny 

a COA and dismiss. 

 *

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value 

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 22, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 09-1516 Document: 01018388284 Date Filed: 03/22/2010 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

I 

 In March 1987, Brim was convicted of aggravated robbery, theft, and conspiracy 

to commit aggravated robbery and theft in Colorado state court. He was sentenced as a 

habitual criminal to life imprisonment. Brim’s convictions were affirmed on direct 

appeal. On March 1, 1991, the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari. Brim did not 

seek a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. 

 In February 1994, Brim filed a motion in state court for post-conviction relief 

advancing eighty-five claims. Following a hearing, the court denied many of Brim’s 

claims and set others for a subsequent hearing. Brim then filed numerous motions in the 

trial court, along with two petitions for writs of mandamus in the Colorado Supreme 

Court. The mandamus petitions were denied in late 1997. Brim’s petition for rehearing 

was rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court on January 6, 1998. 

 Brim’s criminal docket sheet shows no activity over the next six years. On June 7, 

2004, the court received a letter from Brim, which was characterized as a post-conviction 

motion to vacate an illegal sentence. The trial court denied relief and the Colorado Court 

of Appeals affirmed. On December 17, 2007, the Colorado Supreme Court denied 

certiorari. 

 Brim filed a motion for a “Temporary Restraining Order In Writ of Habeas 

Corpus” in federal district court on February 27, 2009. After the district court informed 

him that his filing was deficient, Brim filed a § 2254 petition on May 15, 2009, 

Appellate Case: 09-1516 Document: 01018388284 Date Filed: 03/22/2010 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

advancing seven claims. Brim’s petition was dismissed as time-barred, and the district 

court denied him a COA. 

II

A petitioner may not appeal the denial of habeas relief under § 2254 without a 

COA. § 2253(c)(1). We may issue a COA “only if the applicant has made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2). This requires Brim to 

show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the 

petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted). 

 Brim’s conviction became final on May 30, 1991, when the time to file a petition 

for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court expired. See Sup. Ct. R. 13.1 

(1990) (amended 1995). “Where a conviction became final before AEDPA took effect, 

. . . the limitations period for a federal habeas petition starts on AEDPA’s effective date, 

April 24, 1996.” Preston v. Gibson, 234 F.3d 1118, 1120 (10th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, 

Brim had until April 24, 1997, to file his federal habeas petition absent tolling. See

United States v. Hurst, 322 F.3d 1256, 1261 n.4 (10th Cir. 2003). 

 “The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or 

other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall 

not be counted toward” AEDPA’s one-year limitations period. § 2244(d)(2); see 

Appellate Case: 09-1516 Document: 01018388284 Date Filed: 03/22/2010 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

§ 2254(d)(1). Even assuming that Brim’s state post-conviction motion was not 

abandoned—thus tolling the statute of limitations for the entire period from April 24, 

1996, when the limitations period began, to December 17, 2007, when the Colorado 

Supreme Court denied certiorari1

—Brim’s petition is untimely. He first filed in federal 

court on February 27, 2009, more than two months after the limitations period expired on 

December 17, 2008. See § 2254(d)(1). 

 Brim argues that we should add ninety days to the tolled period to account for the 

time during which he could have, but did not, file a petition for writ of certiorari with the 

United States Supreme Court. He apparently confuses § 2244(d)(2), which tolls the 

“time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other 

collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending,” and 

§ 2244(d)(1)(A), which sets the start of AEDPA’s limitation period on “the date on which 

the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time 

for seeking such review.” Although the time to file a certiorari petition in the United 

States Supreme Court is counted for the latter, it has no relevance for the former. See

Rhine v. Boone, 182 F.3d 1153, 1155-56 (10th Cir. 1999). 

Brim also asserts that he is entitled to equitable tolling, but provides no factual 

basis for such tolling. Accordingly, Brim has waived any claim to equitable tolling. See

 1

 Brim erroneously argues that his state post-conviction proceedings are still 

ongoing. The Colorado Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari ended those proceedings. 

Appellate Case: 09-1516 Document: 01018388284 Date Filed: 03/22/2010 Page: 4 
- 5 - 

Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) (“[Equitable tolling] is only 

available when an inmate diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure 

to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control.”). 

III

 We DENY a COA and DISMISS Brim’s appeal. Brim’s motion for leave to 

proceed in forma puaperis is GRANTED. All other pending motions are DENIED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 09-1516 Document: 01018388284 Date Filed: 03/22/2010 Page: 5