Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): on May 27, 2010, almost a full year after the limitations period expired. Absent any tolling of the one-year limitations period, Galindo’s habeas petition is clearly barred. Galindo argues the district court should have granted his request for an evidentiary hearing to address whether the doctrine of equitable tolling would apply to permit the late filing of his habeas petition. Under the doctrine of equitable tolling, the statute of limitations is tolled when the plaintiffs “failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control.” Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir.2000). Equitable tolling is only appropriate, however, when a plaintiff “diligently pursues his claims.” Id.; see also Woodward v. Williams, 263 F.3d 1135, 1142-43 (10th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>) (quotation and citation omitted), Galindo 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that equitable tolling under  2255 would be allowed if at all only for extraordinary circumstances (B) holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling (C) holding petitioners alleged ignorance of aedpas statute of limitations is insufficient to warrant equitable tolling (D) holding that aedpas statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling only when an inmate diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control (E) holding that equitable tolling is available when a movant untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence
Output (English): holding that equitable tolling under  2255 would be allowed if at all only for extraordinary circumstances