[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 85 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cv -1 42 55 -DLG
ASHER JONES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Resp on de nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 5, 2 01 2) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT andHULL, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ash er J on es , a Flo rid a st at e p ris on er p ro ceed in g thr ou gh co un se l, ap pe al s Case: 11-15857 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 1 of 14th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas

co rp us . After r ev ie w of the reco rdan d c on si de rat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on on th e g ro un d tha t J on es ’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n was un ti m el y fil edun de r th e o ne -y ear l im it at io ns pe rio d p res cri be d b y th e Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Death P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6 (“ AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d)
. I. BACKG ROUND A. Sta te Co urt Pro ceed in gs in Fl or id a A jury co nv ic te d J on es of ( 1) bu rg lary with i nt en t t o c omm ita ba tt ery an d (2 ) se xu al ba tt ery. Jo ne s en te redth e v ic ti m ’s ho m e atni gh t, cl im be d i nt o the be d whe re the vi ct im

an d h er h us bandsl ep t, an d s ex ua ll y pe ne tra te d the vi ct im . The st at e co urt s en te nc edJo ne s t o ato ta l o f 40 y ears inpri so n. On Ap ril 18 , 20 07 , aft er a d ire ctap pe al , th e Fl or id a Fo urth Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal (“ DCA”) af

firm edJo ne s’s co nv ic ti on s. OnMay 24, 2 00 7, the DCA de ni edJo ne s’s m ot io n fo r a reh eari ng . Nin ety day s l at er, o n Au gu st22 , 20 07 , th e ti m e ex pi redforJo ne s t o fi le a pe ti ti on fora writof c ert io rari inth e U.S. Supr em e Co urt. Thu s, o n Au gu st22 , 20 07 , th e AEDPA on e-year li m it at io ns pe rio d fo r fi li ng a fed eral habe as pe ti ti on be ga n t o ru n. J on es di d n otfil e h is fed eral habe as 2 Case: 11-15857 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 2 of 14pe ti ti on un ti l Se pt em be r 29 , 20 10 . This ap pe al co nc ern s wh ethe r hi s p os tco nv ic ti on m ot io ns inst at e co urt t ol le d AEDPA’s li m it at io ns pe rio d. B. Pos t-Co nv ic tio n Rule 3.8 50 Mot io ns Inst at e co urt, o n M arch 11 , 20 08 , Jo ne s fi le d aco un se le d m ot io n fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f un de r th e Fl or id a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 0. Th is fir st Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n was si gn edby Jon es ’s cou ns el , bu t n otby Jon es hi m se lf. As di sc us se d b el ow, Fl or id a law requi res th atRu le 3.8 50 po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io ns be si gn edby the de fen da ntan d c on ta inth e d efen da nt ’s oat h. Fl a. R. Cri m . P. 3.9 87 (1 ). On Ap ril 21 , 20 08 , Jo ne s’s co un se l fi le d asupp le m en ta l Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n th atso ug htto ad d two ad di ti on al cla im s fo r rel ie f. Jo ne s d idno t s ig n thi s m ot io n ei th er. On the same dat e, ho wev er, J on es ’s cou ns el fil edanaffi davi t b y Jo ne s tha t pr ov id ed , inpe rti ne ntpart: “ I ha ve readan d h ereb y affi rm th atall th e fac tu al al le ga ti on s an d c on cl us io ns of f actan d l aw co nt ai ne d i n my Mo ti on Fo r New Tria l
an d m em or an du m

of Law are tru e an d c orrect .” The co un se le d a ffi da vi t co nt ai ne d
no ex pr es s re fere nc e to th e ear li er, o r ev ensupp le m en ta l, Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io ns . On Se pt em

be r 26 , 20 08 , bu t m or e th ana y ear a fte r AEDPA’ s o ne -y ear li mit at io ns pe rio d b eg anto run , Jo ne s’s co un se l fi na ll y fil eda ne w Rul e 3 .85 0 3 Case: 11-15857 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 3 of 14m ot io n tha t was swo rnto an d s ig ne d b y Jo ne s as requi redby Flo rid a la w. On Oct ob er 1 4, 2 00 8, the st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n c ou rt s tru ck witho ut pr ejud ic e al l o f Jo ne s’s Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io ns , i.e., th e o ne s tha t h e h adfil edon Mar ch11 , Apri l 2 1, an d S ep te m be r 26 , 20 08 . The s ta te co urt s tate d tha t the Apri l 21 affi da vi t (wh ic h re fere nc eda m ot io n fo r ne w tri al ) “ do es no t re fere nc e a Mo ti onto Vacat e an d d oe s n otsupp ort the Mo ti on to Vacat e o r th e Supp le m en t t o th e Mo ti on to Vacat e.” The st at e co urt al so no te d tha t the Sep te m be r 26 m ot io n di d n otin cl ud e cl ai m s co nt ai ne d i n the Apri l 2 1 s up pl em en t. The st at e co urt co nc lu de d: “ Inth e in te res t o f jud ic ia l ec on om y , andbe cau se th e ti m e fo r fi li ng a Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n h as no t ex pi red , th e co urt h as de te rm in edth atth e b et te r pr act ic e is to strik e al l p en di ng pl ead in gs in cl ud in g a tt ach m en ts .” The s ta te co urt or de redJo ne s t o fi le a si ng le , pro pe rly sworn, co m pr eh en si ve Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n by May 4, 2 00 9. C. Nov ember 17 , 20 08 Rule 3.8 50 Mot io n Jo ne s’s co un se l fi le d ane w, com pr eh en si ve Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n o n Nov em be r 17 , 20 08 , rai si ng all of h is pre vi ou s cl ai m s. The m ot io n was swo rnto
an d s ig ne d b y

Jo ne s. On Au gu st31 , 20 09 , th e st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n c ou rt d en ie d J on es ’s Rul e 3.8 50 m ot io n. Inad di ti onto ad dr es si ng so m e o f Jo ne s’s cl ai m s o n the m eri ts , th e 4 Case: 11-15857 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 4 of 14st at e co urt ex pl ai ne d tha t J on es ha d p rev io us ly file d “ faci al ly ins uf fic ie nt
m ot io ns ,” so m e o f whi chwere d is m is se d fo r la ck of a n o ath. Th e st at e co urt ci te d it s p rev io us Octo be r 14 ord er s tri ki ng Jo ne s’s Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io ns fil edon Marc h 11 , Apri l 2 1, an d S ep te m

be r 26 , 20 08
. Jo ne s ap pe al edth e st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n c ou rt’s o rd er d en y in g h is lat es t Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n t o the DCA. In Ma y 20 09 , Jo ne s al so fil eda st at e p et it io n fo r habe as co rp us with the DCA, pu rs ua ntto Flo rid a Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro cedur e 9.1 41 (c), ar gu in g tha t h is ap pe ll at e co un se l o n d ire ctap pe al pro vi de d i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce. On Fe brua ry

25 , 20 10 , th e DCA d en ie d J on es ’s Rul e 9 .14 1( c) h ab eas pe ti ti on on th e m eri ts witho uta writ te n e xp lana ti on . On Se pt em be r 15 , 20 10 , th e DCA affi rm edth e st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n c ou rt’s d en ia l o f Jo ne s’s Ru le 3.8 50
m ot io n, al so witho uta writ te n e xp lana ti on . D. Feder al Ha bea s Pro ceed in gs On Se pt em

be r 29 , 20 10 , Jo ne s, thr ou gh co un se l, fi le d the in st an t 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 h ab eas pe ti ti on inth e d is tri ctco urt, ra is in g the fol lo win g thr ee cl ai m s: (1) Jo ne s was de ni eddu e p ro ces s an d e ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l wh enth e st at e tri al co urt an d J on es ’s tri al co un se l fa il edto ev al ua te Jo ne s’s co m pe te nc y to st an d tri al , or t o d ecl are am is tri al ba se d o n J on es ’s in co m pe te nc y ; (2 ) Jo ne s’s tria l 5 Case: 11-15857 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 5 of 14co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ob ject t o the pro se cu to r’s im pr op er co m m en ts m ad e dur in g c lo si ng arg um en t; an d (3 ) Jo ne s’s s ta te ap pe ll at e co un se l
was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to rai se on di rectap pe al th e is su e reg ard in g the pr os ecu to r’s im

pr op er co m

m en ts . The st at e res po nd ed , in te r al ia , th atJo ne s’s § 22 54 pe ti ti on was t im e-b arre d
un de r AEDPA’ s o ne -y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns . The m ag is tra te jud ge is su eda rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on , con cl ud in g tha t Jo ne s’s § 22 54 pe ti ti onsh ou ldbe di sm is se d a s t im e-b arre d, o r, al te rn at iv el y , de ni edon th e m eri ts . W ith re ga rdto ti m el in es s, the m ag is tra te jud ge de te rm in ed th atAEDPA’ s l im it at io ns pe rio d b eg anto run on Aug us t 2 2, 2 00 7, the date on whi chth e ti m e ex pi redforJo ne s t o app eal hi s co nv ic ti on to th e U.S. Supr em e Co urt. The m ag is tra te jud ge reas on edth atJo ne s’s fi rs t Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n, fi le d
on Marc h 1 1, 2 00 8, d idno t s tatu to ril y to ll th e AEDPA li m it at io ns pe rio d b ecau se itwas n otve rif

ie d b y Jo ne s’s o ath, as requi redby Flo rid a la w. As t o J on es ’s supp le m en ta l Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n andaffi da vi t fi le d o n Ap ril 21 , 20 08 , th e m ag is tra te jud ge de ferr edto th e st at e tr ia l co urt’s d et erm in at io n tha t th e aff id av itwas i ns uf

fic ie ntto ve rif

y th e m ot io n fo r Ru le 3.8 50 pu rp os es . The m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d tha t J on es ’s Rul e 3 .85 0 m ot io n, fi le d o n Sep te m be r 26 , 20 08 , was the fir stst at e p os t-c on vi ct io n m ot io n tha t was pro pe rly 6 Case: 11-15857 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 6 of 14ve rif

ie d andth e fi rs t m ot io n tha t co ul d p os si bl y to ll AEDPA’ s l im it at io ns pe rio d. Howev er, the m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d the Sep te m be r 26 , 20 08 , m ot io n was fil ed40 1 d ay s af

te r th e li mit at io ns pe rio d b eg anto run on Aug us t 2 2, 2 00 7, an d th us was t oo lat e fo r to ll in g p ur po se s. Th e m ag is tra te jud ge als o c on cl ud edth at th e Sep te m

be r 26 , 20 08 , m ot io n d idno t re la te ba ckto Jo ne s’s p rev io us Ru le 3.8 50
m ot io ns , su chas t o t ol l the li m it at io ns pe rio d. Al th ou gh Jo ne s d idno t ra is e th e is su e o f equi tabl e to ll in g, the m ag is tra te jud ge su a sp on te de te rm in edth atJo ne s was no t en ti tl edto equi tabl e to ll in g o f th e li m it at io ns pe rio d. Jo ne s o bjec te d t o the m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti onas t o bo th th e ti m el in es s an d m eri ts is su es . The d is tri ctco urt o ve rru le d J on es ’s ob jecti on s, ad op te d the rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on , anddi sm is se d J on es ’s § 2 25 4 pe ti ti on . Even tu al ly, th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d J on es a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity (“ COA”) o n the fol lo win g i ss ue s: (1 ) [W] he th er [J on es ’s] st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n m ot io n was no t pr op erl y fil edun ti l Se pt em

be r 26 , 20 08 ; wh ethe r th at Sep te m be r 26 , 20 08 fil in g re la te d b ackto th e p rev io us on es ; an d wh ethe r th e Pet it io ne r qu al ifi es forequi tabl e to ll in g e ithe r on th e b as is of a n e xt rao rd in ary si tu at io n o r be cau se of a tt orne y erro r. (2 ) [Whethe r] tria l co un se l wer e n otin effe ct iv e fo r no t re qu es ti ng a co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on ; re qu es ti ng a m is tri al ; o r ob jecti ng to pa rts of t he pro se cu to r’s cl os in g arg um en t.

7 Case: 11-15857 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 7 of 14Bec au se we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on on th e g ro un d o f ti m el in es s, we ad dr es s o nl y

th e fi rs t p artof t he COA an d d o n otreac h the is su es reg ard in g in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f tr ia l co un se l. II . DISCUSSI ON The AEDPA im

po se s a o ne -y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns fora st at e p ris on er t o fil e a § 22 54 pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us . See 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d)
. The 1 li mit at io ns pe rio d b eg in s t o ru n o n the da te on whi chth e p ris on er’s jud gm en t be co m es fin al “by the co nc lu si on of d ire ctrev ie w or the ex pi rat io n o f th e ti m e fo r se ek in g s uc h re vi ew.” Id . § 2 24 4( d) (1 )(A). Inth is cas e, itis un di sp ut edth atth e o ne -y ear l im it at io ns pe rio d b eg anto run o n Au gu st22 , 20 07 , whenth e ti m e ex pi redforJo ne s t o fi le a pe ti ti on for a writof c ert io rari inth e U.S. Supr em e Co urt. See Bo ndv. Mo or e, 30 9 F .3d77 0, 77 3- 74 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Becaus e Jo ne s fi le d h is § 2 25 4 p et it io n o n S ep te m be r 29 , 20 10 , itwas t im e-b arre d, ab se ntst atut ory or e qu it ab le to ll in g. Se e 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d)
. A. To ll in g E ffec t of

Jo nes ’s Rule 3.8 50 Mot io ns The on e-year li mit at io ns pe rio d i n § 22 44 (d ) is to ll eddu rin g the pe nd en cy
We revie w de novo the district court’s dismiss al of a § 2254 petition as untimely , and revie w 1 the district court’s fac tual deter minations for clea

r err or. J ohnson v. Fla. Dep’ t of Corrs., 513 F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008). 8

Case: 11-15857 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 8 of 14of

a “pr op erl y

fil ed ” ap pl ic at io n fo r st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n re li ef. 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (2 ). An ap pl ic at io n i s p ro pe rly fil ed“ whe n i ts de li ve ry an d a ccep tanc e are i n c om

pl ianc e wit h the ap pl ic ab le laws an d ru le s g ov ern in g fi li ng s. Th es e us ua ll y pre sc rib e, fo r ex am

pl e, th e fo rm

of t he do cu m en t, the ti m e li m it s upo n i ts de li ve ry , th e co urt an d o ffi ce i n wh ic h i t m us t b e lo dg ed , andth e requi si te fil in g fee.” Artu z v . Ben ne tt , 53 1 U.S. 4 , 8, 1 21 S. Ct. 3 61 , 36 4 (2 00 0) (fo ot no te om itte d) . Fil in g c on di ti on s en co m pa ss m or e th anm erel y

th e co nd it io ns ne ces sa ry

“ to ge t a c le rkto acce pt[a] pet it io n,” an d i nc lu de requi rem en ts th at“ of te n ne ces si ta te jud ic ia l s cru ti ny.” Pace v . DiGu gl ie lm o, 5 44 U.S. 40 8, 4 14 -1 5, 1 25 S. Ct . 18 07 , 18 12 (20 05 ). Und er Fl or id a la w, a Rul e 3 .85 0 m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f m us t b e si gn edby the de fen da nthi m se lf a ndco nt ai n e ithe r a n ot ari zedor a n u nn ot ari zed
oa th . See Fl a. R. Cri m . P. 3.9 87 (1 ). Thi s C ou rt h as he ldth ata Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n th atdi d n otco nt ai n the writ te n o ath re qu ire d b y Flo rid a la w was n ot“pr op erl y fil ed ” und er § 22 44 (d )(2 ) an d, thu s, d idno t t ol l AEDPA’s on e-year li m it at io ns pe rio d. Hurle y

v. Mo or e, 23 3 F .3d12 95 , 12 97 -9 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0)
. Inth is cas e, Jo ne s’s fi rs t Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n, fi le d o n M arch 11 , 20 08 , was on ly sig ne d b y

Jo ne s’s co un se l, n otby Jon es hi m se lf. Al th ou ghJo ne s m ai nt ai ns th athi s at to rn ey ’s si gn atur e su ffi ci en tl y ve rif ie d the m ot io n, Fl or id a la w exp li ci tl y 9 Case: 11-15857 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 9 of 14requi res a de fen da ntto si gnun de r oa th a m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f, se e Fl a.

R. Cri m . P. 3.9 87 (1 ), an d the st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n c ou rt’s d et erm in at io n tha t the
m ot io n was no t p ro pe rly veri fie d i s en ti tl edto de fere nc e o n fe de ral habe as rev ie w, se e Webs te r v. M oo re, 1 99 F.3d12 56 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (s ta ti ng fed eral
co urts sh ou ldde fer t o ast at e co urt’s d eci si on as t o wh ethe r a s ta te po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n was pro pe rly fil edun de r § 2 24 4( d) (2 )). The refo re, J on es ’s Marc h 1 1
m ot io n was no t p ro pe rly veri fie d anddi d n otto ll AEDPA’ s l im it at io ns pe rio d. See Hur le y , 23 3 F .3dat 1 29 8. Jo ne s’s s up pl em en ta l Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n, fi le d o n Ap ril 21 , 20 08 , als o d id
no t t ol l the li m it at io ns pe rio d b ecau se itto o was no t p ro pe rly veri fie d. Al th ou gh Jo ne s s ub m it te d asi gn edaffi da vi t al on g wi th th atm ot io n, the st at e po st -co nv ic ti on co urt ex pl ic it ly det erm in edth atth e aff id av itwas i ns uf

fic ie nt , gi ve n tha t i t d idno t re fer t o apo st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n, b uton ly to a m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al . Evenif the affi davi t’s l ackof r efer en ce t o apo st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n was a sc riv en er’s err or , as J on es su gg es ts , th is do es no t re nd er the m ot io n p ro pe rly fil ed . The s ta te co urt d et erm in edth atth e err orwarran te d s tri ki ng th e m ot io n, an d
we m us t d eferto th e st at e co urt’ dec is io n. Se e Webs te r, 19 9 F .3dat 1 25 9. An d, im po rta nt ly, Jo ne s n ev er ap pe al edth e p os t-c on vi ct io n c ou rt’s d eci si on to strik e h is

10 Case: 11-15857 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 10 of 14Mar ch11 an d Ap ril 21 Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io ns on gro un ds of i ns uf fic ie nc y . 2 Bec au se Jo ne s’s M arch 11 an d Ap ril 21 m ot io ns were n otpro pe rly fil ed , th ey di d n otto ll AEDPA’ s l im it at io ns pe rio d tha t h adbe enrun ni ng si nc e Aug us t 22 , 20 07 . As a res ul t, the li m it at io ns pe rio d e xp ire d b y th e ti m e Jo ne s fi le d h is Sep te m be r 26 , 20 08 , m ot io n. B. Rela tio n Ba ck

of J on es ’s Septe m ber 2 6 Rul e 3 .85 0 Mo tio n Jo ne s ar gu es th atFlo rid a law perm it s an un ti m el y oa th to rel at e b ackto a po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io n tha t was fil edpri orto th e st at e d ead li ne forfil in g s uc h
m ot io ns . Thu s, h e co nt en ds , hi s p ro pe rly fil edSep te m be r 26 oa th rel at edba ckto th e March 11 , 20 08 , m ot io n, re nd eri ng hi s fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on ti m el y . Thi s C ou rt h as pre vi ou sl y he ldth at , wher e a s ta te pri so ne r at te m pt s t o fi le po st -co nv ic ti on m ot io ns inst at e co urt af te r th e AEDPA li m it at io ns pe rio d h ad
ex pi red , th os e atte m

pt edfil in gs can no t t ol l the li mit at io ns pe rio d b ecau se “ on ce a de ad li ne ha s ex pi red , th ere i s n ot hi ng lef t t o t ol l.” Si bl ey

v. Cu ll iv er, 3 77 F.3d 11 96 , 12 04 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ); Webs te r, 19 9 F .3dat 1 25 9 (“ A st at e-co urt
To support his argument that the April 21 aff idavit was sufficie nt to support the Rule 3.850 2 motion, J on es re lies on Kea rse v. Sec’y , Fla. Dep’ t of Corrs., 669 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2011). Kea rse is inapposite, howeve r. In that case , this Court held that the district court err ed by applying § 2254(d) defe renc e to the state court’s fac tual finding that the petitioner’s state po s t -c o n viction motion was untimely , and by failing to consider compelling evidenc e prese nted by the petitioner that the motion was, in fac t, timely
. I d. at 1198-99. Her e, the mag istrate judge did not apply § 2254(d) defe renc e in deter

mining that J ones’s state post-conviction motions wer e not properly filed, and did not ignor e any

evidenc e pre sented by

J ones on this issue.

11 Case: 11-15857 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 11 of 14pe ti ti on . . . th atis fil edfol lo win g the expi rat io n o f th e li m it at io ns pe rio d c an no t

to ll th atpe rio d b ecau se th ere i s n o p eri odrem ai ni ng to be to ll ed .”). Thi s C ou rt ha s al so st at edth ata pe ti ti on er “ m ay no t at te m

ptto res urrecta te rm in at edst atut e of li m it at io ns by sub se qu en tl y fil in g d oc um en ts th atpu rp ort t o ‘rel at e b ack ’ to pr ev io us ly sub m it te d d oc um en ts th atwere, i n the m se lv es , in su ffi ci en t t o t ol l the st atut e.” Si bl ey , 37 7 F .3dat 1 20 4. Re lying on Sib le y , th is Co urt h el d tha t an Alab am a p ris on er’s am en de d s ta te po st -co nv ic ti on pe ti ti on , whi chwas fi le d a fte r th e ex pi rat io n o f AEDPA’ s l im it at io ns pe rio d, d idno t re la te ba ckto a pr ev io us ly
subm it te d p et it io n tha t was fil edpri orto th e AEDPA dea dl in e b utwas d is m is se d by the st at e co urt fo r la ckof v eri fic at io n. Me ls on v. Al le n, 5 48 F.3d99 3, 9 97 -9 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) , vac at edon othe r gr ou nd s, 1 30 S. Ct. 3 49 1 (2 01 0)
. 3 As d ic tate d b y

Sib le y an d e xp la in edinMel so n, J on es ’s Sep te m be r 20 08
m ot io n c ou ldno t re su rrec t AEDPA’s ex pi redli m it at io ns pe rio d b y pu rp orti ng to rel at e b ackto Jo ne s’s fi rs t Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n, fi le d o n M arch 11 , 20 08 , or h is
supp le m en ta l Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n, fi le d o n Ap ril 21 , 20 08 , bo th of wh ic h i n th em se lv es were i ns uf

fic ie ntto to ll th e li m it at io ns pe rio d. See Si bl ey , 37 7 F .3d
Although Melson is no longe r binding on this panel due to its vacatur by the Supreme Court, 3 that decision i s still pertinent, given that it was vacate d on grounds unrelated t o the i s s u e at hand. See J ackson v. Ga. Dep’ t of Transp., 16 F.3d 1573, 1578 n.7 (11th Cir. 1994) (stating that an opinion vacated on u nrelated grounds in a petition for rehe aring had persua sive value)
. Even without Melson, we must follow Sibley
. 12

Case: 11-15857 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 12 of 14at12 04 ; M el so n, 5 48 F.3dat 9 98 . Jo ne s at te m pt s t o d is ti ng ui sh th is cas e fro m Mel so n o n the ba si s tha t Al ab am a la w do es no t p ro vi de forth e rel at io n b ackof po st -co nv ic ti on pl ead in gs , whi le Flo rid a la w all ows su chrel at io n b ack , bu t thi s di st in ct io n i s u na va il in g. Th is Co urt’s d eci si on inMel so n was no t b as edon th e av ai labi li ty, orlac k the reo f, of th e rel at io n- ba ckdo ctrin e und er Al ab am a st at e la w, bu t re st edon th e n atur e o f th e fed eral li m it at io ns pe rio d andfed eral law. See Mel so n, 5 48 F.3dat 9 97 -9 8. Acco rd in gl y , AEDPA’ s l im it at io ns pe rio d i n thi s cas e was no t s ta tu to ril y

to ll edto pre ve ntit s ex pi rat io n. C. Equi ta bl e To ll in g Equ it ab le to ll in g i s “ anex tra or di na ry rem edy ” th at“ is typic al ly app li ed sp ari ng ly,” andon ly whe n ape ti ti on er “ de m on st rat es (1) di li ge nc e in hi s ef fo rts to ti m el y fil e a h ab eas pe ti ti on an d (2 ) ex tra or di na ry an d u na vo id ab le ci rcu m st an ces .” Arthurv. Al le n, 4 52 F.3d12 34 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Here, we ca nn otsay tha t J on es ha s s ho wn re ve rs ib le erro r inth e d is tri ct co urt’s ad op ti on of t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s det erm in at io n tha t J on es was n ot en ti tl edto equi tabl e to ll in g. Th e unt im el in es s o f Jo ne s’s § 22 54 pe ti ti on res ul te d fro m hi s co un se l’s s im

pl e n eg li ge nc e in fai li ng to ha ve Jo ne s s ig n andpro pe rly
ve rif y th e st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n m ot io ns . See Ho ll an d v . Flo rid a, 56 0 U.S. _ _, _ _, 13 0 S . Ct. 2 54 9, 2 56 4 (2 01 0) (“ [A] gard envarie ty clai m of e xc us ab le ne gl ect , 13 Case: 11-15857 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 13 of 14su chas asi m pl e m is cal cu la ti on th atlea ds a lawy er t o m is s a f il in g d ead li ne , do es no t warran t equi tabl e to ll in g.” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o mit te d) ). Bec au se Jo ne s was in el ig ib le eit he r fo r st atut ory or e qu it ab le to ll in g, h is fed eral habe as pe ti ti on was u nt im el y un de r § 2 24 4( d)
. 4 Inli gh t o f th e fo reg oi ng , we can no t s ay th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f Jo ne s’s § 22 54 pe ti ti onas t im e-b arre d was erro ne ou s. We do no t re ach th e se co nd is su e o n wh ic h the di st ric t co urt g ran te d the COA. AFFIRMED.

J ones’s brief mentions two other arguments reg arding the timeliness of his § 2254 petition, 4 namely , that (1) the state waived its right to challeng e the Marc h 11 and April 21 pleading s beca use it did not object to, or mo v e t o s t ri k e, t h ese pleading s; and (2) the state should be estopped from asser ting that the Marc h 11 and Ap ri l 2 1 pleading s wer e not properly filed beca use the cler

k had acc epted those pleading s. The problem for J ones is that the state post-conviction court struck them based on defic iencies, that decision was not app ea l ed , an d, thus, J ones’s only properly filed Rule 3.850 motion was his September 26, 2008, Rule 3.850 motion, which was filed after the one -year AEDPA dea dline had expired. 14

Case: 11-15857 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 14 of 14