FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT JANUARY 9, 20 12 JOHN LEY [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR T HE ELE VENTH C IRC UIT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ No. 0 9-1271 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . Doc ke t No . 05-00 369-C V-RH MIC HAEL DUANE ZAC K, III, Pet iti one r-Appe lla nt, ve rsus KENNET H S. TUC KER , PAM B ONDI, Re spon de nts -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe alfrom

theUni te d Sta

te s Di stri ct

Co urt for theNorth ern Dist

ric t of Fl orida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Ja nua ry 9, 2 012) Be fore DU BINA, Ch ie f Judg e, EDM ONDSON a nd PR YOR , C irc uit

Jud ge s. PER C URIAM : This a ppe alrai se s qu es tio ns o f sta tut ory c onst ruct ion and o f the doc trineofprec ed ent.

Pet iti one r was c onvi ct ed

in Florid a sta

te c ourt a nd wa s se nte nc ed

to de at h. The Florid a Suprem e Co urt a ffirm ed Pet iti one r’s c onvi ction

and s ente nc e an d la

te r de nie d po st-c onvi ction

rel ie f. The Dis tric t C ourt d en ie d ha be as rel ie f but grante d a ce rtific at e of a

ppe al ab ili ty

on t he que sti on o f the ha

be as pe tit ion ’s ti m el ine ss. W e va ca te theDis tric t C ourt’ s de ci sio n a nd re m an d th e ca se . BAC KGR OUND

Pet iti one r Mi ch ae l Du an e Za ck , III was c onvi ct ed in 1997 in Florid a sta

te co urt for m

urde r, se xua l ba

tte ry , a nd rob be ry . TheFlorid a Suprem e Co urt affirm ed Pet iti one r’s c onvi ct ion

and s ente nc e on d ire ct

rev ie w. Za ck

v. Sta te , 753 So. 2d 9 (Fla . 200 0). On 2 Oc tob er 2 000, Pet iti one r’s c onvi ct ion a nd s ente nc e be ca m e fina l wh en

theUni te d State s Supre m e Co urt de nie d hi s pe tition for ce rtiora ri. Se e Za ck

v. Flo rida , 121 S. C t. 1 43 (20 00). On 2 6 De ce m

be r 2001 , Pet iti one r file d hi s first sta te pos t-c onvi ct ion m oti on, a ski ng for a

n e xte nsi on o f tim e for fili ng a m oti on for c oll at era l re vie w. On 10 Ma

y 200 2, Pe tit ion er t

he n fil ed a m oti on i n st at e co urt t o va ca te his co nvi ction

and s ente nc e. B oth

theDe ce m

be r an d M ay

m oti ons ca

m e m ore tha

n 2one y ea

r afte r the c onvi ct ion

be ca m e fina l. W

he n Pe tit ion er’ s c oll at era l re vie w proc es s wa s go ingon i n st at e co urt, t he Uni te d Sta

te s Supre m e Co urt de ci de d Atki ns v . Virgi nia , 122 S. C t. 2 242 (2002); and Pe tit ion er a m en de d hi s po stco nvi ction

fili ngs to i nc lud e cl ai m s ne wly m ad e av ai la

ble und er At

kin s. In 2005 , theFlorid a Suprem e Co urt de nie d Pe tit ion er a ll post -convic tio n re lie f. Za ck v. State , 911 So. 2d

119 0 (Fla . 200 5). Pet iti one r ne xt t

urne d to thefed era l c ourts for pos t-c onvi ct ion rel ie f, fili ng thi s ha be as pe tit ion

and ra isi ng m

ult ipl e cl ai m s for re lie f, inc lud inga c la im und er Atki ns. The Dis tric t C ourt dismiss ed a ll of Pet iti one r’s non -Atki ns c la im s a s unt im el y and d en ie d th e Atki ns c la im on t he m eri ts. The Dis tric t C ourt t he n grante d a c ert ific at e of a

ppe al ab ili ty

on t he ti m el ine ss i ssu e. STANDAR

D OF REVIEW

Pet iti one r’s ha

be as pe tit ion

is subj ec t t o th e provi sio ns o f the Ant ite rrorism an d Effe ct iveDe at

h Pe na lty Ac t of 1 996, Pub. L. No. 1 04-132 , 110 Sta t. 1 214 (1996) (c odi fie d in

sc at te red se ction s of Ti tle28 o f the U.S. C ode ) (“ the AEDPA” ). The AEDPA i m

pose s a one -y ea r statut e of li m ita

tio ns for t he fili ng o f se ct ion

225 4 pe tit ion s. 2 8 U.S.C . § 2 244(d)(1). W e revi ewde nov o a dis tric t c ourt’ s 3de te rm ina

tio n th at a ha be as pe tit ion

is tim e ba

rred. He pburn v. M oore . 215 F.3d 1208 (11th

Ci r. 2000 ).
DISCUSSION The AEDPA s ta

tut e of li m ita

tio n is e xpre sse d in

se ct ion 224 4(d): (1) A 1-y ea

r pe riod o f limita

tio n sh al l a

ppl y to an ap pli ca tio n for a writ of ha

be as c orpus by

a pe rson in cu sto dy pursu ant t o th e jud gm ent of a State c ourt. The limita tio ns p eri od s ha ll run from thelate st o f - (A) the date on whic h th e jud gm ent be ca m e fina l by thec onc lus ion

of di rec t re vie w or th e expiratio n of t he tim e for se ekingsuc h re vie w; (B) th e date on whic h th e im pe dim ent t o fil ingan ap pli ca tio n c reate d by

a State a ct ion

in vio la tio n of t he Co nst itutio n or l aw s of t

he Uni te d State s is rem ove d, i f thea ppl ic ant i s pre ve nte d from fili ng b y suc h State ac tio n; (C) th e date on whic h th e co nst itutio na l right as se rte d wa s in iti al ly

rec ogni ze d by

theSupre m e Co urt, if th e right

ha s be en ne wly rec ogni ze d by

theSupre m e Co urt a nd m ad e ret

roac tiv el y a ppl ic ab le to ca se s on co lla te ralrev ie w; o r (D) the date on whic h th e fac tua l pre dic at e of the cl ai m or c la im s pre se nte d c oul d ha ve be en dis co ve red throu gh t he e xe rci se of duedil ige nc e. (2) The ti m e durin g whi ch a prope rly file d 4ap pli ca tio n for State pos t-c onvi ct ion or ot he r co lla te ral revi ewwit

h re spe ct to the pe rtine nt j udgm ent or c la im is pe ndi ng s ha ll not

be c ount ed

tow ard any

pe riod o f limita tio n un de r thi s su

bse ct ion . 28 U. S.C. § 22 44(d) (e m

pha sis a dde d). The Dis tric t C ourt a

na lyze d e ac h of Pe tit ion er’ s ha be as c la im s sepa

rat el y for tim el ine ss. The Dis tric t C ourt fo und that m ore tha n on e y ea r ha d run from

theti m e Pet iti one r’s c onvi ction

be ca m e fina l untilhe file d hi s fe de ralha be as pe tit ion

but that l es s th an

oney ea r (takingtol lin g into a cc ount) ha d run from theSupre m e Co urt’ s At

kin s de ci sio n untilhe file d th e pe tition . Za ck v. C rosby , 607 F. Supp. 2d 1291 , 129 5 (N.D. Fl a. 200 8). B as ed on t he se findings, theDis tric t C ourt co nc lud ed

tha t t he non -Atki ns c la im s we re tim e ba rred; but theDis tric t C ourt co nc lud ed

tha t t he Atkins c la im

wa s ti m el y

und er s ec tio n 22 44(d)(1)(C) b ec au se Atki ns re co gni ze d a

ne w right a

nd wa s re troa ct ive ly

a ppl ic ab le to ca se s on co lla te ralrev ie w. Pet iti one r doe s no t c ont en d th at he file d a m oti on s uffic ie nt t o to ll the runni ng o f the sta

tut e of li m ita

tio ns o n hi s no n-Atki ns c la im s wi thi n on e y ea r of his co nvi ction ’s be co m ingfina l on 2 Oc tob er 2 000. Pet iti one r jus t c ont en ds t hat t he tim el ine ss o f his ha

be as pe tit ion

m ust be ana lyze d by

loo kin g a t t he pe tit ion

a s a whol e an d no t by

ana lyzi ng h is p et iti on c la im by c la im . He a sse rts t

ha t hi s ti m el y 5Atki ns c la im rev ive d hi s ot

he r tim e-ba

rred c la im s, m akingthee nti re p et iti on, i n effe ct , ti m el y . In W al ke r v. C rosby , 341 F.3d 1 240 (11th Ci r. 2003 ), thi s C ourt l ai d do wn therulefor an al yzi ng t im el ine ss o f a p et iti on. TheW alke r co urt a ddre sse d a ha be as pe tit ion

tha t i nc lud ed one c la im

tha t wa s ti m el y

a nd s om e oth er c la im s th at -- vie we d in

iso latio n -- we re u

nti m el y . TheW alke r co urt s ai d th is q ue sti on wa s the n be fore t

he c ourt fo r de ci sio n: “ whe the r indi vid ua l c la im s wi thi n a

sin gle ha be as pe tit ion

m ay be rev ie we d sepa

rat el y for ti m el ine ss, in l ight of Art uzv. Be nne tt, 531 U.S. 4, 121 S. Ct . 361 , 148 L. Ed . 2d 213 (2000).”W al ke r, 341 F.3d at 124 2. The pe tit ion

in W alke r invo lve d a

res ente nc inga

nd wa s de te rm ine d to be tim el y und er s ec tio n 22 44(d)(1)(A). B ut t hede ci sio n of W alke r, int erpre tin g se ct ion 224 4(d), re ac he s be y ond thec irc um sta nc e of a res ente nc ing . Gi ve n th e argum ents m ad e to t

he W al ke r co urt a

nd t he proc es s of re as oni ng s et out in its opi nio n, t he W al ke r co urt de ci de d -- as a princ ipl e of la

w -- that a

sin gle li mita

tio n pe riod a ppl ie s to a

whol e pe tit ion

and t ha t t he li m ita tio n pe riod fo r the whol e pe tit ion runs one y ea

r from thelate st o f the trig ge ring e ve nts e sta bli she d in se ct ion 2244 (d)(1)(A)-( D). Id. a

t 12 45. The rule from

theW alke r de ci sio n wa s st at ed in

6theopi nio n th is w ay : “ [t] he sta tut e of li m ita

tio ns i n § 2 244(d)(1) a

ppl ie s to the 1 ap pli ca tio n a s a whol e; ind ivi dua l c la im s wi thi n a n a ppl ic at ion c annot berev ie we d sepa rat el y for ti m el ine ss.”Id. In theli ght

of th is ru le , th e entire pe tit ion in W al ke r qua lifi ed , in

fac t, a s tim el y be ca use theres ente nc inga ct ivate d a one -y ea r-limita tio n pe riod u

nde r se ct ion 224 4(d)(1)(A), give n th at theW al ke r pe tit ion

inc lud ed a c ha lle nge to the res ente nc ing ; bu

t, i n la w, th e ex ist en ceof a

ny of th e oth er t

rigge ring e ve nts in se ct ion 224 4(d)(1)(B)-(D) woul d ha ve e qua lly

m ad e the e nti re W al ke r pe tit ion tim el y a s lo ng a s th e pe tit ion

inc lud ed a ti m el y c la im und er o ne of th ose oth er trigg eri ng p rovis ion s. Give n th e ap proa ch

ta ke n by theW al ke r co urt, t

he e xis te nc e of a res ente nc ingwa s no t, i n it se lf, vi ew ed a s th e m at eri alfac t. T o th e W al ke r co urt, thee vid ent m at eri alfac t -- th at is, thele ga lly

rel ev ant t hin g -- wa s th e ex ist en ceof any one of th e kin d of t

rigge ring e ve nts li ste d in

thepe rtine nt l imita

tio ns s tatut e. W al ke r bind s us in thepre se nt c as e. Sec tio n 22 44(d)(1) ha s in no w ay be en am en de d si nc e W al ke r was de ci de d. No Supre m e Co urt ho ldi ng o r en ba nc hol din g from

thi s C ourt h as sup ers ed ed theW al ke r de ci sio n on

them anne r to

We understand that not eve ry profe ssed rule se t out in an appellate opinion is binding 1 prec edent. 7an al yzeti m el ine ss i n a ha be as pe tit ion . In th is C irc uit , th e tim ely Atkins c la im

in 2 Pet iti one r’s pe tition

m ak es ti m el y

a ll the oth er c la im s in

thepe tit ion : re viv ing cl ai m s th at

we re d et ermine d to be ind ivi dua lly unt im el y by theDis tric t C ourt. The W al ke r co urt e xpl ic itl y

rec ogni ze d th at

it s de ci sio n wou ld a llo w th e “ res urrec tio n of what se em

to be ti m e-ba

rred c la im s ta ggi ng alon g on thec oatta ils of a

ti m el y cl ai m .” W al ke r, 341 F.3d at 12 47. That “res urrec tio n” ha s ha ppe ne d in thepre se nt pe tit ion . The Dis tric t C ourt, as a

m at te r of la w, e rred i n a

ppl y ingthesta

tut e of limita tio n sepa rat el y to ea ch c la im in the pe tit ion

and i n di smiss ingany

c la im in thepe tit ion

in thi s c as e on t

hegroun ds o f unti m el ine ss. VAC ATED a

nd REMA

NDED. 3

The footnote in Pac e v. DiGug lielmo, 125 S. C t. 1807, 1813 n.6 (2005), cited by the 2 District Court and Appellee s does not constitute a holding 

### . We know that our Circuit’s law on this li mitations question i s not the law eve ry wher e. The pre cise bounds of most dec isional rules areuncer tain. But we fee l obliged to f ollow the Walker rule . Given the wa y the ca se wa s argued to the Walker c ourt, and the ma nner in which the Walker

case was de cided, wecannot a ccept the contention that the Walker de cision here is only

persua sive authority : that is, not bi nding a uthority -- e x cept f

or habe as applications in which one c laim, at least, is tied to the circ umstance of a re sentenc ing. Petitioner/Appellant’s Motion for Expansion of Certificate of Appe alability , filed 5 3 Dec ember

2011, is DENI ED. 8