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

### S e p t e m b e r6,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT L AVONE B. BA RR ON,

P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 1118 v. ( D . C ol or ado) JO E O R T IZ , E x ec u ti v e D ir ec tor, C olor ado D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s, a n d th e AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T H E S T A T E O F C O L O R A D O ,

R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - c v - 2 6 0 9 - Z L W)

OR DER B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. L avo ne B . B arr on , a C olor ado st at e pri soner proceed i ng pro se, seeks a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty( “C O A ”) t o appea l t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 pet i t i on forhabea s corpus as unt i m el yfi l ed. M r . B arr on also see k s to p roc ee d in fo rm a p au p eris (“IF P ”). I n that § 2 2 5 4 p eti ti o n , M r. B arr on al l eged a vi ol at i on of hi s s peedyt r i al r i ght s , unl aw ful r es tr ai nt s , and l ack of j ur i s di ct i on bythe s t at e court s . Fors ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons s etfor th by the di s tr i ctcourti n i t s w el l - r eas oned or der , w e denyM r . B arr on’ s appl i cat i on for a C O A an d d ism iss th is m att er.M r . B arr on’ s pet i t i on w as r ece i ved byt he di s tr i ctcourton D ece m ber12, 1 2005, butnots t amped “fi l ed” unt i l D ece m ber23, 2005. -2- I . BA CK GR OUND A c c o rd in g to h is § 2 2 5 4 p e tit io n , M r. B a rro n w a s c o n v icte d o f tw o c o u n ts of s econd- degr ee bur gl aryi n the D enverC ountyD i s tr i ctC our t . O n O ct ober6, 2000, he w as s ent ence d t o tw o concurr entfor ty - ei ghty ears ent ence s . M r . B arr on s t at es thathe fi l ed an uns ucce s s ful di r ectappea l . H e cont ends the C ol or ado Supr eme C our tdeni ed hi s w r i tof ce r t i or ar i on A ugus t26, 2002, and the di s tr i ct c o u rt n o te d th a t h e d id n o t s e e k re v ie w in th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rt . M r. B a rro n sta tes th a t h e d id n o t file a p o stc o n v ictio n m o tio n in sta te c o u rt, how ever , the di s tr i ctcourtfound he di d fi l e a pe t i t i on i n s t at e courtfora w r i tof habea s corpus al l egi ng w r ongful r es tr ai nti n the D epart m entof C or r ect i ons thr ough N ovember10, 2005. T he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded the pet i t i on w as nece s s ar i l yfi l ed s om et i m e betw een N ovember10, 2005 and N ovember29, 2005, th e d a te o n w h ic h th e c o u rt d e n ie d th e p e titio n . O n D ece m ber12, 2005, M r . B arr on fi l ed thi s § 2254 pet i t i on i n fede r al court . A ft erdet erm i ni ng thatM r . B arr on’ s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal on

1 N ovember26, 2002, the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed the pet i t i on as t i m e- barr ed undert he o n e-y ea r l im it ati o n p eriod estab li sh ed b y2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 4 (d). T h e d istri ct co u rt al s o not ed thatM r . B arr on di d notpr es entanyexce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s t hat-3-

m ig h t w a rra n t eq u itab le to lli n g . F in a lly , the d istric t co u rt a lso c o n c lu d e d th a t, e v e n if th e p e tit io n w a s n o t ti m e -b a rre d , tha t M r. B a rro n fa iled to e x h a u st s tate re m e d ie s . See 28 U . S. C . § 2254( b) ( 1) ( A ) . T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed M r . B arr on a C O A and thi s r eques tfol l ow ed. I I . DI S CU S S I ON A C O A can onl yi s s ue “i f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . “A pet i t i oner sa tisfies th is s tan d a rd b yd e m o n stra tin g th a t ju rists o f re a so n c o u ld d isa g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt’s r e so lu tio n o f h is c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s o r th a t ju rists c o u ld concl ude the i s s ues pr es ent ed ar e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 5 3 7 U . S . 3 2 2 , 3 2 7 (20 0 3 ). W h en a d istri ct co u rt h a s d ism iss e d a h a b e a s p e tit io n o n p ro c e d u ra l g ro u n d s, a c e rtific a te w ill o n ly issue w h en “jurist s o f re aso n w o u ld find itd eb atab le w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt w as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 (2 0 0 0 ). U n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d )(1 ), “[ a ] 1 -y e a r p e rio d o f lim itatio n sh a ll ap p ly to a n a p p lica tio n fo r a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s b ya p e rso n in c u sto d yp u rsu a n t to the j udgm entof a St at e court . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2244( d) ( 1) . I n hi s C O A appl i cat i on befor e us , M r . B arr on does notaddr es s the unt i m el i nes s of hi s pet i t i on, and he does notr ai s e equi t abl e t ol l i ng. I ns t ead, M r . B arr on focus es on hi s under l y i ng-4-

cl ai m s r egar di ng hi s s peedyt r i al r i ght s , unl aw ful r es tr ai nt s , and l ack of j uri sdi ct i on bythe st at e cou rt s. B as ed on ourr evi ew of the r ecor d on appea l , the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s or der , and M r . B arr on’ s s ubm i s s i ons t o thi s court , w e ar e notper s uaded j ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d di s agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s pos i t i on of M r . B arr on’ s § 2254 p eti ti o n . In su m , rea so n ab le j u ri sts w o u ld ag ree w ith the d istri ct co u rtthat M r. B arr on’ s cas e does notpr es ent“r ar e and e xcept i onal ci r cumst ance s ” w arr ant i ng e q u ita b le to llin g u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d ). G i bs on v. K l i nger , 232 F. 3d 799, 8 0 8 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we DE NY M r . Barr on ’ s r e qu e s tfo ra CO A , D EN Y hi s mot i on t o p r oc e e d I FP, a nd D I SM I SS th e m a tte r. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge