F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 21 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
LEONARD HOWARD MIKES,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 99-6079
v. (D.C. No. CIV-98-1055-T)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA; R. D. (W.D. Okla.)
ANDREWS; and DENNIS
CUNNINGHAM,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining Petitioner-Appellant Leonard Howard Mikes’ briefs and
the 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, a state prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254.
As a preliminary matter, we must decide whether this court has jurisdiction
to hear Petitioner’s appeal. The district court entered its Order Nunc Pro Tunc
denying § 2254 relief on January 14, 1999. Pursuant to Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), 26(a)(3), and 26(a)(4), Petitioner’s notice of
appeal was due on February 16, 1999, the Tuesday after a legal holiday
(Presidents’ Day). Petitioner’s notice of appeal was docketed as filed on
February 17, 1999. However, in response to a jurisdictional show cause order
issued by this court, Petitioner submitted a return receipt from the post office
indicating that he mailed an item to the district court on January 25, 1999. He
also submitted a statement by a prison official indicating that he took Petitioner’s
paperwork to the mailroom on January 22, 1999. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 4(c)
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, we hold that Petitioner’s notice of
appeal was timely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) (“If an inmate confined to an
institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil or criminal case, the notice is
timely if it is deposited in the institution’s internal mail system on or before the
last day of filing.”); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding that pro
se prisoner’s notice of appeal is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison
officials for forwarding to the district court).
-2-
To determine whether Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability,
we now examine whether Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). On July 31, 1998,
Petitioner filed a § 2254 petition challenging his 1988 conviction of forcible oral
sodomy after former conviction of a felony for which he received a sentence of
200 years’ imprisonment. Concluding that the petition was time-barred and that
Petitioner had alleged no basis for tolling, equitable or otherwise, the magistrate
judge recommended dismissal. After considering Petitioner’s objections and
reviewing the matter de novo, the district court found that the petition was time-
barred and entered an order of dismissal. As noted above, Petitioner subsequently
filed a notice of appeal. The district court construed the notice of appeal as a
request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and denied
it.
This court has reviewed Petitioner’s briefs, the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation, the district court’s orders, and the entire record on appeal.
Because Petitioner’s § 2254 petition was due on April 23, 1997, see 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1), and because no basis exists for tolling that one-year limitation period
in this case, see Hoggro v. Boone, 150 F.3d 1223, 1225 (10th Cir. 1988), the
district court properly determined that his petition is time-barred. We conclude
that Petitioner has raised no arguments which require further proceedings, are
-3-
debatable among jurists, or are subject to a different resolution on appeal. See
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983). Accordingly, Petitioner has not
made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). We therefore DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of
appealability for substantially the reasons set out in the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge, and we DISMISS this appeal. The
request to proceed in forma pauperis is also DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-4-