Case Name: Mario AKOTHE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden BEAR, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-27
Citations: 707 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 17-6221
Parties: Mario AKOTHE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden BEAR, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
Mario AKOTHE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden BEAR, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6221
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Filed December 27, 2017
(D.C. No. 5:17-CV-00693-D) (W.D. Oklahoma)
Mario Akothe, Pro Se
Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge
The district court denied Oklahoma state prisoner Mario Akothe's application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the ground that it was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). To appeal that ruling, Mr. Akothe must obtain a certificate of appealability ("COA") from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (requiring a COA to appeal "the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court"). To obtain a COA, he must show "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); accord Dulworth v. Jones, 496 F.3d 1133, 1137 (10th Cir. 2007).
Mr. Akothe does not address timeliness in his brief requesting a COA. Although we liberally construe Mr. Akothe's filings because he represents himself, we do not act as his advocate. Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). Without an argument from Mr. Akothe as to why reasonable jurists would debate the district court's ruling, we must deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We also deny Mr. Akothe's motion to proceed informa pau-peris,
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.