Opinion ID: 167938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: In 1999, M r. Howard was convicted of multiple counts as an accessory to fraudulent use of a credit card and forgery, and conspiracy to commit the same. He was sentenced to sixteen years in prison and sought state post-conviction relief, which was denied at all levels, with one minor exception. 2 After M r. Howard’s state petitions were denied, he sought a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The State urged the federal magistrate 1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 2 The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed Mr. Howard’s convictions on direct appeal on January 10, 2002. However, it remanded for correction of a clerical error in the judgment, thereby reducing the judgment and sentence on one of the counts from a third-degree felony to a fourth-degree felony. -2- judge to find the motion time-barred by AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations. The magistrate judge rejected the State’s position and recommended that the district court find the federal habeas petition timely. The magistrate judge relied on this Court’s unpublished decision in Truelove v. Smith, 9 Fed. Appx. 798, 802 (10th Cir. 2001), which held that a motion for modification of sentence brought under New M exico’s Rule 5-801(B) tolls the AEDPA statute of limitations. The State filed an objection before the district court, pointing out that the Truelove decision does not have precedential weight and arguing that its analysis should be rejected in favor of the contrary reasoning of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Walkowiak v. Haines, 272 F.3d 234 (4th Cir. 2001). The district court disagreed that Truelove had been wrongly decided, and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. However, the district court recognized that there was “substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal . . . [might] materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The State filed a petition requesting permission to bring an interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b) and we granted that petition on November 4, 2005.