### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T N ove m be r 18, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11128 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -007 61 -C V -C A M -1 J E R R Y S T E W A R T H A L L , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s W A R D E N C A R L H U M P H R E Y , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 18, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an dK R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Je rry S t ew artH al l , a G eorgi a pri soner, appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss alSteed v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2000) ; Coates v. By rd, 211 F .3d 1225 (11th Cir. 1 2000). 2 of hi s habe a s pe t i t i on, 28 U . S . C . § 2254, a s t i m e - ba rr e d. F orthe f ol l ow i ng r e a s o n s , w e a f

f i rm. I . B a c kgr ound H a ll w a s c o n v ic te do f

a g g r a v a te dc h ildm o le s ta tio n a n ds e n te n c e dto tw e n ty y e a r s i m pr i s onm e nt . H i s c onvi c t i on w a s a f f i rm e d on di r e c tappe a l on M a r c h 21, 1997. H a l l v. G e or gi a , 485 S . E . 2d 800 ( G a . C t . A pp. 1997) . H a l l f i l e d am ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on, da t e d M a r c h 30, 1997, butw hi c h w a s notf i l e d unt i l A pr i l 9, 1997. O n A pr i l 29, 1997, the G e or gi aC ourtof A ppe a l s di s m i s s e d the m ot i on f or r e c ons i de r a t i on a s unt i m e l y . O n M a r c h 3, 1998, H a l l f i l e d as t a t e habe a s pe t i t i on, w hi ch w as deni ed on A ug ust1, 20 03 . A ce rt i fi ca t e of probabl e c ause (“ C P C ”) w as de ni e d on J a nua ry12, 2004. H a l l f i l e d the i ns t a nt§ 2254 pe t i t i on on M a r c h 8, 2 0 0 4 . A ft erthe st at e r es po nd ed thatthe pet i t i on w as t i m e- barr ed, H al l as se rt ed that hi s c onvi c t i on di d notbe c om e f i na l unt i l M a y9, 1997, w hi c h w a s the e xpi r a t i on of the t e n- da ype r i od i n w hi c h he c oul d ha ve f i l e d ape t i t i on f

orc e rt i or a r i r e vi e w of the de ni a l of

hi s m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on. H a l l c onc e de d, how e ve r , tha tc urr e nt l a w di d notpr ovi de f

ort ol l i ng of

the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od f orthe t i m e i n w hi c h he 1 c oul d ha ve s oughtr e vi e w of the de ni a l of

C P C . A l t e rna t i ve l y , he a r gue d tha the3

w a s e n title dto e q u itab le to llin g . T he m agi stra t e j ud ge re com m ended thatthe pet i t i on be di sm i ss ed as t i m eb arred . T h e m ag i strat e j u d g e fo u n dth atH al l ’ s co n v i ct i o n b ecam e fi n al t en d ays a f te rH a ll c o u ldh a v e s o u g h t r e v ie w o f th e s ta te c o u rt o f

ap p e a ls ’ a f

f irm a n c e o f

h is c onvi c t i on. A ddi t i ona l l y , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge f ound tha tthe r e c ons i de r a t i on m ot i on di d n ott ol l the l i m i t at i on s per i od because i tw as un t i m el y, and thatthere w a s n o to llin g d u r in g th e tim e to p e titio n f o rr e v ie w o f

th e d e n ia l o f

aC P C . F in a lly , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e d e te rm in e dth a t H a ll w a s n o t e n title dto e q u itab le to llin g . T he di stri ctcourtadop t ed the m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s r ec om m endat i on ov er H al l ’ s obj ec t i on s and di sm i ss ed H al l ’ s pet i t i on as t i m e- barr ed. T he di stri ctcourt th en g ra n teda c er ti fica te o f ap p ea lab il ity ( “C O A ”) o n th e iss u e o f w h eth erH all’ s p e titio n w a s u n tim e ly . II . H al l ’ s A pp ea l H a l l a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d byf i ndi ng hi s § 2254 pe t i t i on u n tim e lyb e c au s e th e m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n a n dth e tim e in w h ic h h e c o u ld ha ve s oughtr e vi e w f

r om the de ni a l of

aC P C s houl d ha ve t ol l e d the l i m i t a t i ons p e r io d , a lth o u g h h e c o n c e d e s th a t h is p o s itio n is n o t s u p p o rte db yc a s e la w . A lte rn a tiv e ly , H a ll a r g u e s th a t h e w a s e n title dto e q u itab le to llin g .Hall f ile d his p etition

a fter t hee ff e c tiv edateof

theAnti terror is m and

Ef fe c tiv eDe ath 2 Penalty Act of 1996 (“ AE DP A” ), P ub. L . No. 104-32, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), a nd, there fore , the provisions of that act g overn this appe al. 4 W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe pe t i t i on f or fe dera l habeas corpus re l i ef w as t i m e- barr ed un der the A E D P A . W ade v. B att l e, 2 3 7 9 F .3 d1 2 5 4 , 1 2 5 9 n .5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . A d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e c is io n o n e q u itab le to llin g a ls o is r e v ie w e dd e n o v o . I d . a t 1 2 6 5 n .1 1 ( c itin g D r e w v . D e p ’t o f C o rr ., 297 F . 3d 1278, 1283 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ) . “ [ T ] he di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i ons of th e r e le v a n t f

a c ts w ill b e r e v e r s e do n lyif c le ar lye rr o n e o u s .” I d . T o be t i m e l yf

i l e d, H a l l ’ s § 2254 pe t i t i on w a s due w i thi n one y e a rof the d a t e o n w h i c h h i s c o n v i c t i o n b e c a me f i n a l . 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . “ Th e t i me du ri ng w hi ch a properl y f i l ed appl i ca t i on for S t at e post -c on vi ct i on or other c ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w . . . i s pe ndi ng s ha l l notbe c ount e d t ow a r d anype r i od of lim ita tio n u n d e r[ th e A E D P A ].” 2 8 U .S .C .§ 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) ; W a d e , 3 7 9 F .3 da t 1 2 5 9 . T o be “ pr ope r l yf

i l e d, ” how e ve r , a n appl i c a t i on m us tm e e tthe f i l i ng de a dl i ne s a nd t i m e l i m i t a t i ons on de l i ve ry . W a de , 379 F . 3d a t1260, 1264 ( c i t i ng A rtuz v. B e n n e tt, 5 3 1 U .S . 4 , 8 , 1 2 1 S .C t. 3 6 1 , 3 6 4 , 1 4 8 L .E d .2 d2 1 3 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ) . H er e, w e def

ert o the st at e c ou rt ’ s rul i ng thatH al l ’ s m ot i on t o rec on si der w a s n o t tim e lyf

ile d . W a d e , 3 7 9 F .3 da t 1 2 6 2 ( e x p la in in g th is c o u rt’s d e f e r e n c e ) . A c c or di ngl y , the unt i m e l ym ot i on t o r e c ons i de rw a s not“ pr ope r l yf i l e d” a ndThe district cour t is bound by

the dec isions of this court. Moreover , a panel of this court 3 c annot o verr

ule d th ede c isi on s o f a

prior pa ne l. Unite d State s v . Ste e le , 1 47 F .3 d 1 31 6, 13 18 (1 1th Cir. 1998). 5 w o u ldn o t to ll th e lim ita tio n s p e r io d . M o r e o v e r , th e te n d a y s in w h ic h H a ll c o u ld h a v e s o u g h t r e v ie w o f

th a t d e n ia l a ls o w o u ldn o t to ll th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . F u rth e rm o r e , th e tim e p e r io dd idn o t to ll du r in g th e n in e ty - d a yp e r io din w hi c h H a l l c oul d ha ve s oughtr e vi e w of the C P C de ni a l . N ordi d i tt ol l dur i ng the t e n - d a yp e r i o di n w h i c h H a l l c o u l dh a v e mo v e df o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

th e CPC d e n ia l. S e e , e .g ., M o o r e , 3 2 1 F .3 da t 1 3 8 0 . H a ll’s a r g u m e n t is f o r e c lo s e db yth is c ourt ’ s de c i s i ons i n S t e e d a nd C oa t e s , hol di ng tha t“ the t i m e dur i ng w hi c h a 3 pe t i t i on f orw r i tof

c e rt i or a r i i s pe ndi ng, orc oul d ha ve be e n f i l e d, f ol l ow i ng the de ni a l of c ol l a t e r a l r e l i e f

i n the s t a t e c ourt s , i s nott o be s ubtr a c t e d f r om the runni ng of t i m e f or 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(d)(1). ” S t ee d, 21 9 F . 3d at13 00 ; C oat es , 21 1 F . 3d at 12 27 . T here fore , H al l ’ s c on vi ct i on becam e f i nal on M ar ch 31 , 19 97 , and H al l had one y e a rf

r om tha tda t e t o f

i l e hi s f e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on. W e c onc l ude tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tlyf o u n dth a t m o r e th a n o n e y e a re lap s e db e f o r e H a ll f

ile dh is f e d e r a l § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n . F in a lly , w e r e

je c t H a ll’s a r g u m e n ts th a t h e w a s e n title dto e q u itab le to llin g .

“ E q u i t ab l e t o l l i n g i s an ex trao rd i n ary rem ed y th ati s typ i cal l y ap p l i edsp ari n g l y; ho w ever , ‘ i ti s app ropri at e w hen a m ov antun t i m el y f i l es because of e xtra ordi nary6

c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t a r e b o th b e y o n dh is c o n tr o l and u n a v o id ab le e v e n w ith di l i ge nc e . ’ ” W a de , 379 F . 3d a t1265 ( c i t i ng D r e w , 297 F . 3d a t1286 ( quot a t i ons om i tt e d) ( e m pha s i s i n or i gi na l ) ) . H a l l ha s notof f e r e d a nya r gum e nte xpl a i ni ng h o w th e r e w e r e e x tr a o r d in a ryc ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t w e r e b e y o n dh is c o n tr o l. M or e ove r , m i s c a l c ul a t i on of the da t e s , e ve n i f

a tthe ha nds of

a n a tt orne y , doe s not c o n s titu te e x tr a o r d in a ryc ir c u m s ta n c e s . S te e d , 2 1 9 F .3 da t 1 3 0 0 . A cc ordi ng l y, w e A F F IR M the di sm i ss al of H al l ’ s § 22 54 pet i t i on as t i m eba rr e d.