Case Name: Calvin Dean PETERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO; Tim Lemaster, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-23
Citations: 53 F. App'x 534
Docket Number: No. 02-2013
Parties: Calvin Dean PETERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO; Tim Lemaster, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 53
Pages: 534–535

Head Matter:
Calvin Dean PETERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO; Tim Lemaster, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-2013.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 23, 2002.
Calvin Dean Peters, Santa Rosa, NM, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Margaret E. McLean, Office of the Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before SEYMOUR, EBEL, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
O'BRIEN, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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.
Petitioner-appellant Calvin Dean Peters appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition and denying his requests for appointment of counsel and request for continuance. The district court dismissed the petition because it concluded that Peters had failed to file within the one-year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Peters seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the order of dismissal. See id. § 2253(c)(1)(A). In order to receive a COA on a procedural issue, he must show both "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and 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). Peters has filed an extensive array of materials in support of his request for COA. He seeks to raise the following issues concerning the district court's procedural rulings: (1) the district court's failure to appoint counsel for him deprived him of the opportunity to adequately brief the issues raised in his petition; (2) he should have received an evidentiary hearing; (3) the district court should have granted his request for continuance; (4) the "mailbox rule" applies, making his petition timely; (5) the state waived the opportunity to argue the untimeliness of his petition; (6) he did not receive an adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before the district court dismissed his petition; (7) the time limit should have been equitably tolled; (8) the New Mexico state prison law library was inadequate to allow him to fully investigate and present his claims and/or he was denied access to legal materials; (9) his claims are timely under the "discovery rule" of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D); and (10) his petition for certiorari to the New Mexico Supreme Court was timely. In addition, he raises a number of issues pertaining to whether his underlying petition states a claim for the violation of a constitutional right.
Upon careful consideration of the material submitted by Peters, the record on appeal and the applicable law under the above-referenced standards, we have determined that Peters is not entitled to a COA. We therefore DENY COA and DISMISS this appeal. Peters' motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.