UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

HADORI KARMEN CHANTEL 

WILLIAMS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 20-6027 

(D.C. Nos. 5:19-CV-00982-R & 

5:15-CR-00174-R-1) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________ 

Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.**

_________________________________ 

Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Western District of Oklahoma alleging ineffective assistance 

of counsel and challenging his armed career criminal sentence. The district court 

dismissed the action as untimely and denied Defendant a certificate of appealability. 

Now, Defendant requests a certificate of appealability from this Court. Exercising 

 

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law 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. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 2, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), we deny Defendant a certificate of appealability 

and dismiss Defendant’s appeal. 

If a district court denies a motion to vacate on procedural grounds without 

reaching the defendant’s underlying constitutional claim, a certificate of appealability 

will issue when the defendant shows “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether 

the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “jurists of 

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000); see also United States v. Crooks, 

769 F. App’x 569, 571 (10th Cir. 2019) (unpublished). The defendant must satisfy 

both parts of this threshold inquiry before we can hear the merits of the appeal. Gibson 

v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 802 (10th Cir. 2000). 

In this case, the district court dismissed Defendant’s motion to vacate as 

untimely. After carefully reviewing Defendant’s request for a certificate of 

appealability, the district court’s order of dismissal, and the record on appeal, we agree 

that Defendant’s claims are barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2255’s one-year statute of 

limitations. Defendant attempts to escape this conclusion by arguing he is entitled to 

equitable tolling because he is actually innocent and failure to address his claims would 

result in a miscarriage of justice. 

While § 2255’s one-year limitation period is subject to equitable tolling in 

certain circumstances, including when an inmate is actually innocent, Defendant fails 

to show he is actually innocent of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Rather, 

Defendant argues he should not have been sentenced as an armed career criminal. 
3 

Relying on United States v. Hamilton, 889 F.3d 688 (10th Cir. 2018), Defendant argues 

his prior state convictions for second degree burglary and attempted first degree 

burglary should not have been considered crimes of violence under the Armed Career 

Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We have held, however, that “[p]ossible 

misuse of a prior conviction as a predicate offense under the sentencing guidelines does 

not demonstrate actual innocence.” Sandlain v. English, 714 F. App’x 827, 831 (10th 

Cir. 2017) (unpublished). Thus, Defendant’s attempt to circumvent the one-year 

limitation period through a showing of actual innocence fails. 

Moreover, as the district court notes in its order of dismissal, equitable tolling 

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

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

States v. Gabaldon, 522 F.3d 1121, 1124 (citing Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 

(10th Cir. 2000)). In this case, Defendant has not shown any extraordinary 

circumstance caused his failure to timely file. Although he relies on United States v. 

Hamilton to argue he only recently discovered his prior state convictions do not qualify 

as crimes of violence under the ACCA, Hamilton was decided on May 4, 2018. 889 

F.3d 688. Defendant did not file his motion to vacate until October 26, 2019. 

Defendant provides no explanation as to why he delayed in filing his motion to vacate 

until more than one year after this Court issued its decision in Hamilton. He certainly 

has not shown he pursued his claims diligently, or that his failure to timely file was 

caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control. See Gabaldon, 522 F.3d at 

1124. 
4 

Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s 

order, we hold that no reasonable jurist would find it “debatable whether the district 

court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 478. Therefore, we 

GRANT Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, DENY Defendant’s request 

for a certificate of appealability, and DISMISS this appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge