F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
August 24, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
M ICHA EL B RIA N WH ITEM AN,
Petitioner - A ppellant,
No. 06-4054
v. (D.C. No. 2:05-CV-424-TC)
(D. Utah)
CLINT FRIEL,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE O F APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, M cKA Y, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
M ichael Brian W hiteman, on parole and appearing pro se, seeks a
certificate of appealability (“COA”’) so that he may appeal from the district
court’s dismissal of his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The
district court determined that M r. W hiteman failed to exhaust his claims in state
court and that, alternatively, he failed to allege a violation of federal law.
The issuance of a CO A is jurisdictional. M iller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336 (2003). W here the district court dismisses a petition on procedural
grounds, a COA requires the inmate to demonstrate that it is reasonably debatable
whether (1) the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right,
and (2) the district court’s procedural ruling is correct. Slack v. M cDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000). W here the district court has rejected a habeas petitioner’s
constitutional claims on the merits, the petitioner must demonstrate that
“reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or w rong.” Id.
M r. W hiteman contends that the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole should
not have characterized five of his prior California misdemeanor convictions as
felonies for purposes of extending his term on a five-to-life sentence. On January
26, 2004, M r. W hitehead filed a petition for extraordinary relief in Utah state
court. That court dismissed his petition and he appealed. On appeal, he argued
that he was denied counsel at his parole hearing. The Utah Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal because M r. W hitehead raised a different issue on appeal.
W hiteman v. Friel, 2005 W L 27548 (Utah Ct. App. 2005). The court relied on its
rule that absent plain error or exceptional circumstances, it does not consider
issues not raised below for the first time on appeal. Id. (citing M onson v. Carver,
928 P.2d 1017, 1022 (Utah 1996)). It appears that M r. W hitehead attempted to
file an untimely petition with the Utah Supreme Court, but that court never
considered the petition. See I R. Doc. 1 (Petition at 3).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), federal courts may not grant an
application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a state prisoner unless the
prisoner has “give[n] the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any
constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established
-2-
appellate review process.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). A
prisoner seeking federal habeas relief must first exhaust his state remedies; by
failing to seek timely review by the Utah Supreme Court, M r. W hiteman has not
exhausted. See Dever v. Kan. State Penitentiary, 36 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir.
1994).
In any event, the claim is procedurally barred–were M r. W hiteman to return
to the Utah Supreme Court to seek certiorari in an effort to challenge the court of
appeal decision, the thirty day time period in which to do so (or seek an
extension) has long since run. Utah R. App. P. 49(a) & (e); Dulin v. Cook, 957
F.2d 758, 759 (10th Cir. 1992). Additionally, the claim is procedurally defaulted
for having not raised it before the state court of appeals. W here a claim has been
procedurally defaulted on an adequate and independent state-law ground, a
petitioner must make a showing of cause and prejudice, or a fundamental
miscarriage of justice. Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 262 (1989). W e agree with
the district court that Utah regularly applies its rule that absent plain error or
exceptional circumstances, an issue not raised in the district court may not be
raised on appeal. See M onson v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017, 1022 (U tah 1996).
Because the procedural default rests on an application of independent and
adequate state law ground, the federal court could not hear the state claim, absent
a show ing of cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Harris,
489 U.S. at 262. The district court’s decision is not reasonably debatable.
-3-
W e DENY a COA, DENY all pending motions, and DISM ISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-4-