FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T APR 9, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 6- 14 59 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock et No. 0 5- 22 51 0- CV-UUB
LEO C. HOL LINGSW ORTH,
Peti ti on er-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF FLORIDA, Bi ll McC ol lu m , SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, W al te r A. McNei l,

Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees
.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- - Befo re BLACK, BARKETT an d P RYOR, Ci rcu it Ju dg es
. BY THE COURT:
O n D e c e mb er 30 , 20 08 , th is Co ur t gr an te d App el le es ’ m ot io n to st ay th i s
ap pe al pe nd in g th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s di sp os it io n of Ji m en ez v. Q u art erm an , S.Ct

.Doc ke t No . 07 -6 98 4.

On Jan ua ry 13 , 20 09 , th e Su pr em e Co ur t is su ed it s de ci si on in Ji m en ez. See
Ji m en ez v . Quar te rm an , _ U.S. _ , 12 9 S .Ct. 6 81 (20 09 ). The C ou rt h el d t ha t, ...[W ]here a st a t e c o u r t gr an ts a cri m in al de fen da nt th e rig ht to fil e an

ou t-o f-t im e di rect ap pe al du rin g st at e co l la te ral rev ie w, bu t be fo re th e
de fen da nt ha s fir st so ug ht fed eral ha be as rel ie f, hi s jud gm en t is no t y et “ fin al ”
f o r p u r p o s es of [2 8 U.S.C.] § 22 44 (d )(1 )(A). In su ch a cas e, “ th e da te o n
whi ch th e jud gm en t be came fin al by th e co nc lu si on of di rect rev ie w or th e

ex pi rat io n of th e ti m e fo r se ek in g su ch rev ie w” m us t refl ect th e co nc lu si on of
th e ou t-o f-t im e di rect ap pe al , or th e ex pi rat io n of th e ti m e fo r se ek in g rev ie w
of th at ap pe al

. Id ., 68 6- 68 7. Dire ct rev ie w of th e ou t-o f-t im e ap pe al co nc lu de s whe n th e Su pr em e
Co ur t affi rm s a co nv ic ti on on th e m eri ts on di rect rev ie w or d e n i e s a pe ti ti on fo r a
writ of cert io rari , o r, if th e p r is on er el ect s no t to pu rs ue cert io rari rev ie w, wh en th e
ti m e fo r se ek in g c ert io rari ex pi res
. Id., 6 85 -6 86

. 1

J imenez v. Quar

terman eff

ectively abrog ates Coates v
. By rd , 211 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 1 2000), to the extent that Coates held that the one-y ear filing period was not tolled during the ninety

day period in which a

state prisoner

could have but did not file a petition for a wr it of cer tiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Und er th e pr io r pa ne l pr eced en t ru le , “ ...a pr io r pa ne l’s h o l d i n g i s bi nd in g on al l su bs eq ue nt pa ne ls un le ss an d un ti l it is ov erru le d o r un de rm in ed to th e po in t of abro ga ti on by th e Su pr em e Co ur t or by th is co ur t sit ti ng en ba nc .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Arch er, 5 31 F.3d 13 47 , 13 52 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ).
2On Feb ru ary 24 , 20 0 9 , App el le es fil ed a m ot io n to rem an d fo r fu rth er

pr oc eed in gs in li gh t of Ji m en ez v. Qua rte rm an
. Bec au se App el le es co nc ed e in th ei r

m ot io n th at , un de r Ji m en ez v. Qua rte rm an , App el la nt ’ s pe tit ion is no t ti m e-b arre d, th e

m ot io n i s co ns tru ed as a co nf es si on of e rro r. App el la nt ob

jects to App el le es ’ m ot io n to th e ex te nt th at App el le es su gg es ts
th at th e di st ric t co ur t, rat he r th an th is Co ur t, sh ou ld de ci de whe th er, in li gh t of
Ji m en ez v. Qua r t e r man , t he pe ti ti on is ti m e-b arre d; th is ob jecti on is co ns tru ed as a

m ot io n to va cat e th e di st ric t c o u r t ’s di sm is sa l or de r be fo re rem an di ng fo r fu rth er
pr oc eed in gs
. App el la nt ’s m ot io n to va cat e th e dis tr ic t co ur t’s di sm is sa l or de r is GRANTED.
The Ju ly 1 7, 20 06 , o rd er gr an ti n g r e v i e w o f th e m ag is tra te ’s s up pl em en ta l or de r to
sh ow cau se an d di sm is si ng App el la nt ’s pe ti ti on as ti m e-b arre d is he reb y VACATED. App el le es ’ m ot io n fo r r e man d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs in li gh t of Ji m en ez v. Qua rte rm an is als o GRANTED. App el la nt ha s as ke d th is Co ur t to pu bl is h it s de ci si on on th e in st an t m ot io ns
. App el la nt ’s m ot io n fo r pu bl ic at io n i s GRANTED.

3