United States v. Clayton , 264 F. App'x 707 ( 2008 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 7, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 07-3267
v. (D. Kansas)
DALE CLAYTON, (D.C. Nos. 07-CV-4016-SAC and
03-CR-40045-SAC)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER
Before HENRY, Chief Judge, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Dale Clayton, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to
vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The
district court denied his § 2255 motion as untimely, because it was filed more
than a year after his conviction became final. For the reasons explained below,
we deny Mr. Clayton’s request for a COA, and dismiss the matter.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Clayton pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of a mixture or
substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The plea agreement included a waiver of both direct appeal
and collateral attack. The district court sentenced Mr. Clayton to 151 months’
imprisonment, which was the bottom of the applicable sentencing guideline range.
Mr. Clayton appealed to this court, alleging a violation of Booker. We rejected
his appeal, because it was “within the scope of an enforceable waiver.” United
States v. Clayton, 416 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir. 2005). We issued the mandate
on September 12, 2005. Mr. Clayton sought a writ of certiorari from the United
States Supreme Court, which the Court denied on January 6, 2006. Mr. Clayton
filed his § 2255 motion on January 29, 2007, which the district court denied.
II. DISCUSSION
The district court construed Mr. Clayton’s “notice of appeal” as an
application for a COA, which it denied. A COA may issue only “if the applicant
has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of
reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional
claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327
(2003). When a district court has dismissed a habeas petition on procedural
grounds, a certificate will only issue when “jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). We construe Mr. Clayton’s pro se petition
-2-
and appellate filings liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972);
Cummings v. Evans, 161 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 1998).
Mr. Clayton filed his § 2255 motion on January 29, 2007, which he
concedes exceeded the governing one-year limitation period under § 2255 ¶ 6(1).
However, Mr. Clayton argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he
diligently pursued assistance in filing his § 2255 motion. We agree with the
district court that Mr. Clayton’s “vague and conclusory allegation that he could
not find any reliable assistance for eleven months is insufficient to support
equitable tolling.” Rec. doc. 86, at 4-5. He has failed to demonstrate that his
“failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his
control.” Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 2000).
III. CONCLUSION
Because jurists of reason would not find the district court’s conclusions
debatable, we DENY Mr. Clayton’s request for a COA, and DISMISS the matter.
Entered for the Court,
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
-3-