F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
February 7, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JOSEPH L. W ILLIAM S,
Petitioner–Appellant, No. 06-1417
v. (D.C. No. 06-CV-755-ZLW )
JA M ES E. A BB OTT; TH E (D . Colo.)
A TTO RN EY G EN ER AL O F THE
STA TE OF C OLO RA D O ,
Respondents–Appellees.
OR DER *
Before KELLY, M cKA Y, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
In this pro se § 2254 appeal, Petitioner challenges his 1994 murder
conviction. In his § 2254 petition, he raised claims concerning denial of his right
to self-representation, unknowing waiver of his right to testify, and ineffective
assistance of counsel. The petition was referred to a magistrate judge, who
determined, based on the record before him, that the one-year limitation period
for filing a habeas petition expired in 1997. The magistrate judge then ordered
Petitioner to show cause w hy his petition should not be dismissed on those
grounds.
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
In response, Petitioner submitted excerpts of state court orders and briefs
indicating Petitioner filed two post-conviction proceedings in state court, the first
having been filed even before Petitioner’s direct appeal was concluded. The
district court, after thoroughly analyzing the tolling of the one-year limitations
period under 28 U .S.C. § 2244(d)(2) in light of these documents, nevertheless
determined that Petitioner’s action was time-barred. Given the district court’s
cogent analysis, we see no reason to repeat that effort here.
Petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability in order to challenge the
district court’s denial of his habeas petition. See Montez v. M cKinna, 208 F.3d
862, 867 (10th Cir. 2000). To obtain a certificate of appealability, Petitioner
must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). In order to meet this burden, Petitioner must
demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate w hether (or, for that matter,
agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the
issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”
Slack v. M cDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotation omitted).
After carefully review ing the district court’s comprehensive and well-
reasoned disposition, the record on appeal, and Petitioner’s filings, we find
nothing that meets our standard for the grant of a certificate of appealability. For
substantially the reasons set forth by the district court, we DENY Petitioner’s
request for a certificate of appealability and DISM ISS the appeal. W e do,
-2-
however, GR ANT Petitioner’s motion to proceed in form a pauperis.
Entered for the Court
M onroe G. M cKay
Circuit Judge
-3-