FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

September 6, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL DEE JAMISON,

	Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

JUSTIN JONES, 

	Respondent-Appellee.	

No. 06-6145
          (D.C. No. CIV-06-48-C)
                  (W.D. Okla.)	

ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before KELLY, McKAY, and  LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

	Michael D. Jamison, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, requests a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition.
  For substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court, we DENY Jamison’s request for a COA and DISMISS.
	Jamison’s § 2254 petition challenges sentences adjudged after two different state convictions:  a 1996 conviction for burglary, and a 2000 conviction for escape following conviction of two or more felonies.  Because Jamison did not appeal either conviction, his burglary and escape convictions became final ten days after the pronouncement of the judgment and sentence – on November 10, 1996 and January 13, 2000, respectively.  See Fisher v. Gibson, 262 F.3d 1135, 1142 (10th Cir. 2001).  Jamison did not file this § 2254 petition in federal district  court until January 13, 2006, five years after the limitations periods
 expired.
  AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas petition under § 2254 began to run for each conviction on the date they became final.  Thus, absent statutory or equitable tolling, the limitations periods expired on November 10, 1997, and January 13, 2001, respectively.
	 Upon recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district court dismissed Jamison’s petition as untimely.  Finding that the statute of limitations period had elapsed and that Jamison was not entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2244(d)(2), the district court also rejected Jamison’s claim for equitable tolling based on his lack of knowledge of his legal rights arising from his illiteracy and lack of direct access to a law library.  After reviewing the record, we agree that Jamison has failed to demonstrate either that extraordinary circumstances beyond his control prevented him from filing his petition on time, or that he diligently pursued his claims throughout the period that he seeks to toll.  See Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976, 978 (10th Cir. 1998).  Illiteracy alone does not merit equitable tolling.  See Turner v. Johnson, 177 F.3d 390, 392 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that ignorance of legal rights, even if due to illiteracy, does not merit equitable tolling).  Further, not having direct access to the prison law library, and being required to wait a period of days to receive requested materials cannot excuse a five-year delay in filing his § 2254 petition.  See Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 808 (10th Cir. 2000) (“[A] claim of insufficient access to relevant law . . . is not enough to support equitable tolling.”).  We conclude that Jamison’s § 2254 petition is barred by AEDPA’s statute of limitations.
	Accordingly, we GRANT Jamison’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma

 pauperis, DENY Jamison’s application for a COA, and DISMISS the appeal.

							ENTERED FOR THE COURT

							Carlos F. Lucero
							Circuit Judge