How does the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit justify affirming the decision of the District Court in denying petitioner's petition for COA, basing their denial, in part, on the Petitioner's lack of demonstrating any exceptional circumstance to warrant equitable tolling in accordance with §2244 (d)(1), thus rejecting his timeliness arguments?

How can the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Cir., at pg. 10 of it's Denial Order, claim petitioner did not present an actual innocence argument to the Magistrate Judge as an exception for his un-timely §2254, in response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, as well as claiming petitioner did not present the actual innocence argument with supporting evidence from the ineffective assistance of counsels claim to the District Court in his objection to the Magistrate Judge's R & R, when all one needs to do is look at both documents to see that petitioner did actually present his actual argument in both, (albeit perhaps in a not-so-professional, pro se manner), innocence thus clearly, arbitrarily ignoring the merits?

how-does-the-u.s.-court-of-appeals-for-the-10th-circuit-justify-affirming-the-decision-of-the-district-court