F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
August 4, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ROY LAM ONTE BOW M AN,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 06-6053
v. (D.C. No. 05-CV -954-L)
SA M C ALB ON E, Warden; R ON (W . D. Okla.)
W A RD ; and A TTO RN EY G EN ERAL
OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOM A,
Respondents-Appellees.
OR DER
Before K ELLY, M cK AY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Appellant is a state prisoner, seeking habeas relief and challenging the
execution of his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He claims that he was denied
due process in connection with a 1996 disciplinary proceeding. Appellant had
been placed in a pre-parole conditional supervision program in 1991, and after his
arrest and misconduct conviction in 1996, he w as not returned to the program. In
2000, Appellant executed a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He was
unsuccessful in state district court, and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
denied him relief in 2001. Appellant initiated the present action on August 12,
2005. A magistrate judge recommended that his petition be denied as untimely.
Report and Recommendation, 7 (W .D. Okla. Aug. 31, 2005). The district court
adopted the magistrate judge’s report in full and dismissed Appellant’s petition as
untimely. Order, 3 (W .D. Okla. Jan. 8, 2006). The district court also denied
Appellant a certificate of appealability in an order on February 21, 2006.
A one-year limitations period applies in state prisoners’ habeas actions. 28
U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1)(A)-(D) (2000). In addition, federal law provides that the
limitations period is tolled for a “properly filed application for State post-
conviction or other collateral review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(2) (2000). As the
magistrate judge properly recommended, Appellant’s limitations period on all
habeas claims would have begun by M ay 21, 2001 (date of state court filing), and
ended on M ay 21, 2002. Report and Recommendation, at 6. Therefore, his filing
of a habeas petition in 2005 is untimely. W e are also in accord with the district
court’s finding that Appellant did not satisfy the requirements for equitable
tolling. Order, at 2.
Appellant now seeks from this court a certificate of appealability. The
issues he raises on appeal are identical to those brought before the district court.
To grant a certificate of appealability, Appellant must make a “substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (1994).
To meet this burden, Appellant must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could
debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been
resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
-2-
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. M cDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000) (quotation omitted).
W e have carefully reviewed Appellant’s brief, the magistrate judge’s
recommendations, the district court’s disposition, and the record on appeal.
Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal, or Petitioner’s filing raises an issue
which meets our standard for the grant of a certificate of appealability. For
substantially the same reasons set forth by the magistrate judge in the Report and
Recommendation of August 31, 2005, and the district court’s orders of January 8,
2006, and February 21, 2006, we cannot say “that reasonable jurists could debate
whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in
a different manner.” Id.
Accordingly, we D EN Y Petitioner’s request for a certificate of
appealability and DISM ISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
M onroe G. M cKay
Circuit Judge
-3-