United States v. Brooks , 634 F. App'x 669 ( 2016 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 5, 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 15-3199
v.
(D.C. Nos. 5:15-CV-04848-JAR &
5:11-CR-40030-JAR-1)
TAJUAN CARVELL BROOKS,
(D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before BRISCOE, GORSUCH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
Nearly two years after his federal conviction for felony drug and firearm
offenses became final, TaJuan Brooks filed a motion seeking to have his
conviction and sentence set aside. But as the district court recognized, a federal
habeas petitioner normally has only one year within which to seek collateral relief
like this. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). And while that deadline can be tolled for
equitable reasons, the district court found that the exceptional circumstances
required for such relief were absent and dismissed his case as untimely.
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
Mr. Brooks now seeks to appeal that holding. To do so, he must first
obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) from this court. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B). And to do that, he must show that “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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
This much Mr. Brooks hasn’t done. In his submission to this court, he puts
forward no argument whatsoever for why his motion was timely or why the
district court’s careful analysis and decision not to apply equitable tolling was in
error. Neither can we identify any flaws in the district court’s determination on
either score. Mr. Brooks’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, his
request for a COA is denied, and this appeal is dismissed. Mr. Brooks is
reminded of his obligation to pay the filing fee in full.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-2-