Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): became final. Consequently, 558 days (198 added to 360) passed between the time Mr. Bisner’s state convictions became final and the time he filed his federal habeas petition. Because this passage of time well exceeds the applicable one-year statute of limitations, the district court was correct in concluding that Mr. Bisner’s petition was untimely. In addition to arguing that his petition was timely filed, Mr. Bisner also argues for equitable tolling based on the fact that he lacked a law library, legal training, and knowledge of the limitations period, and had only limited assistance from prison contract attorneys. We have limited equitable tolling of the one-year limitations period to “rare and exceptional” circumstances. Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 808 (2000). In ir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976, 978 (10th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding delays caused by prison inmate law clerk and law library closures do not justify equitable tolling (B) holding that allegations of a total denial of all access to the prison law library for 25 days following a prison riot stated a constitutional violation (C) holding that attorneys mental illness may justify equitable tolling (D) holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling (E) holding that attorney miscalculation of aedpa time period did not justify equitable tolling
Output (English): holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling