FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

June 9, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

		Plaintiff-Appellee,	

No. 05-4138	
	v.	(D. of Utah)	
JOSE VELASQUEZ-MEZA,

		Defendant-Appellant.	(D.C. Nos. 05-CV-402-TC and  2:96‑CR‑149‑TC)		

	ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before HARTZ, EBEL, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.**  

	Jose Velasquez-Meza seeks a Certificate of Appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his Motion to Vacate or Reduce Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2255.  Because his motion is untimely, we DENY the COA and DISMISS his appeal.    
	I.  Background
	On April 22, 2002, Velasquez-Meza pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 120 months in prison followed by 60 months of supervised release.  He appealed the conviction to this court, and we affirmed on October 3, 2003.  He did not file a petition for certiorari.  On May 5, 2005, Velasquez-Meza filed a § 2255 motion in the district court, but the district court denied the motion because it was time barred.  
 II.  Analysis
	A circuit court may issue a COA “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”  28 U.S.C. 
§ 2253(c)(2).  If a district court rejects a claim on procedural grounds and does not reach the merits, the appellant seeking a COA must demonstrate “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).  In our analysis, we construe Velasquez-Meza’s pleadings liberally since he appears pro se.  See Cummings v. Evans, 161 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 1998).  
	Here, there can be no debate because Velasquez-Meza’s petition was untimely.  As the district court explained, for purposes of a § 2255 motion, if a prisoner does not file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court after losing a direct appeal, the one-year limitation begins to run when the time for filing a petition for certiorari ends.  United States v. Burch, 202 F.3d 1274, 1279 (10th Cir. 2000).  The time for filing a petition for certiorari would have expired on January 2, 2004, ninety days after this court affirmed Velasquez-Meza’s conviction.  For the motion to have been timely, Velasquez-Meza would have had to file one year after that.  Since he did not file until May 5, 2005, the 
§ 2255 motion is time barred.
	III.  Conclusion
	For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Velasquez-Meza’s application for a COA and DISMISS this appeal.  His motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
							Entered for the Court									Timothy M. Tymkovich
							Circuit Judge