Case Name: Nicholas AMRINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Justin JONES, Director; Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-06
Citations: 477 F. App'x 531
Docket Number: No. 12-5105
Parties: Nicholas AMRINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Justin JONES, Director; Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before LUCERO, O’BRIEN, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 477
Pages: 531–531

Head Matter:
Nicholas AMRINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Justin JONES, Director; Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 12-5105.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 6, 2012.
Nicholas Amrine, Lawton, OK, pro se.
Diane L. Slayton, Jared A. Looper, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before LUCERO, O’BRIEN, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING APPEAL
TERRENCE L. O'BRIEN, Circuit Judge.
Nicholas Amrine, an Oklahoma state prisoner, proceeding pro se, wants to appeal from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The district court dismissed his petition because: 1) it was barred by the AEDPA's one year statute of limitations; 2) Amrine had not identified a state-imposed impediment which might have excused his delay in filing; and 3) he had not demonstrated entitlement to equitable tolling. We deny his request for a Certificate of Appealability (COA).
Amrine's brief to this court argues the merits of his petition but does not address the fundamental problem leading to the dismissal: the statute of limitations. We consider only contentions that have been adequately developed. See Chambers v. Barnhart, 389 F.3d 1139, 1142 (10th Cir.2004) ("The scope of our review . is limited to the issues the claimant . adequately presents on appeal." (citation, internal quotation marks, and alteration omitted)). Because the statute of limitations bars Amrine's habeas petition, we cannot consider the merits of his claims.
We DENY the request for a COA and DISMISS this matter.
Inexplicably, the district court granted leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees. While prepayment of fees has been excused, Amrine is, nevertheless, ultimately responsible for all filing and docketing fees and must pay them to the Clerk of the District Court. See Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1129 (10th Cir.2001) (recognizing dismissal of an appeal does not relieve appellant of the obligation to pay the filing and docket fees in full).