Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): He waited over a year after learning he was being denied enhanced credits due to his conviction in 84-51 to file his first “Request to Staff.” Therefore, he did not begin to exhaust his administrative remedies until after the limitations period had already expired. Consequently, his exhaustion of administrative remedies, however diligent, did not toll the limitations period. See cf. Fisher, 262 F.3d at 1142-43. He is not entitled to administrative tolling. D. Equitable Tolling Assuming equitable tolling even applies in this case, a petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he demonstrates (1) he diligently pursued his rights and (2) some extraordinary circumstance prevented his timely filing. See Holland v. Florida, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2560, 2562, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) (<HOLDING>). Titsworth has failed to satisfy either prong. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that  2244d is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases (B) holding new time period of 28 usc  2244d inapplicable to pending habeas petition where period ended before amendments effective date (C) holding statute of limitations period defined in 28 usc  2244d is subject to equitable tolling (D) holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling (E) holding that the oneyear statute of limitations set out in 28 usc  2244d applies to  2241 petitions
Output (English): holding new time period of 28 usc  2244d inapplicable to pending habeas petition where period ended before amendments effective date