FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 25, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 15670 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 1 5 6 2 - C V- T - 2 7 - MAP M A R K A L L E N T A Y L O R , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S E C R E T A R Y , D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 25, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M a rk A l l e n T a y l or , aF l or i dapr i s one rpr oc e e di ng p ro se , appe a l s the2

d is m is s a l o f

h is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 f

e d e r a l h ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n a s u n tim e ly . T a y lo rw a s c o n v ic te d o f r o b b e ry w ith ad e a d ly w e ap o n in s ta te c o u r t in N ov em ber 199 8. T he conv i ct i on and sent ence w er e uph el d i n d i re ctappeal s bef ore th e s ta te c o u r ts . F o llo w in g e x h a u s tio n o f a ll d ir e c t ap p e a ls , th e ap p lic ab le l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od f

orf e de r a l habe a s r e l i e f

r a n f r om A pr i l 17, 2000 unt i l A pr i l 17, 20 01 . O n A pri l 18 , 20 01 , on e dayaf t erthe l i m i t at i on s per i od expi re d, T ay l or fi l ed a p ro se m ot i on f

ors t a t e habe a s r e l i e f

. T he s t a t e m ot i on, a nd a l l appe a l s a r i s i ng f r om tha tm ot i on i n s t a t e c our t , w e r e s ubs e que nt l y de ni e d. O n A ugus t27, 2003 T a y lo rf ile d h is § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n f o rf e d e r a l h ab e a s r e lie f

. B e f or e the di s tr i c tc our t , the s t a t e i ni t i a l l y c onc e de d tha tthe §2254 pe t i t i on w as t ol l ed by the st at e procee di ng s a nd w as there fore t i m el y, bu tar gu ed thati tw as p r o c e d u r a lly d e f

a u lte d a n d w ith o u t m e r it. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t, s u a s p o n te , concl ud ed tha tthe s t a t e e rr one ous l y c onc e de d tha tthe s ui tw a s nott i m e - ba rr e d s i nc e the l i m i t a t i on pe r i od l aps e d be f or e s t a t e habe a s pr oc e e di ngs c om m e nc e d. F ur the r , the di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned thatT ay l or had fai l ed t o d em on stra t e e xtra ordi nary ci rcu m st an ces su ffi ci en tt o w arran teq u i t ab l e t o l l i n g an d fu rth er fai l ed t o est ab l i sh a c o lo ra b le “actu al in n o ce n ce ” c laim . T h e d istrict co u rt th u s d ism isse d T ay lo r’s p e titio n . T a y l orappe a l e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l , a nd w e gr a nt e d ac e r t i f i c a t e of3

appeal abi l i ty ( “ C O A ”) as t o the fol l ow i ng i ss ue on l y: W hether the di stri ctcourt e rr e d in d is m is s in g ap p e lla n t’s § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n a s u n tim e ly . T he A nt i t errori sm and E ff ec t i ve D ea th P enal ty A ctof 19 96 (“ A E D P A ”) i mp o s e s ao n e - y e a rp e r i o d o f l i mi t a t i o n s f

o rw r i t s o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s . 2 8 U . S. C. § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) . H ow e ve r , “ [ t ] he t i m e dur i ng w hi c h apr ope r l y f i l e d appl i c a t i on f orS t a t e pos t - c onvi c t i on orothe rc ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w w i th r e s pe c tt o the pe r t i ne nt j udgm e ntorc l a i m i s pe ndi ng s ha l l notbe c ount e d t ow a r d a ny pe r i od of l i m i t a t i on .

. . . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2244( d) ( 2) . F ur the r , be c aus e § 2244( d) i s as t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons a n d n o t aju r is d ic tio n a l b a r , it a llo w s e q u itab le to llin g “w h e n am o v a n t u n tim e ly f i l e s be c a us e of

e xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s tha ta r e both be y ond hi s c ontr ol a nd un avoi dabl e e ven w i th d i l i gence. ” Sa n dvi k v. U n i ted S ta tes, 177 F . 3d 1269, 1271 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . T ay l or do es no tdi sput e thathe fi l ed hi s m ot i on for s t at e habeas re l i ef af t er the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od ha d e xpi r e d. F ur the r , he c onc e de s tha tthe r e a r e no e xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s tha tw oul d j us t i f y appl i c a t i on of

the e qui t abl e t ol l i ng do ctri ne. T hu s, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n d i sm i ss i ng T ay l or’ s pet i t i on as unt i m e l y . T a y l orne ve r the l e s s a r gue s tha tthi s C our ts houl d a ddr e s s the m e r i t s of h is § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n b e c a u s e h e is “a c tu a lly in n o c e n t” o f th e c r im e o f

c o n v ic tio n . H ow e ve r , w e ha ve ne ve rhe l d tha tthe r e i s a n “ a c tua l i nnoc e nc e ” e xc e pt i on t o the4

A E D P A ’ s one - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons , a nd w e de c l i ne t o do s o i n the i ns t a nt c a s e b e c a u s e T a y lo rh a s f a ile d to m a k e as u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f a c tu a l in n o c e n c e . See S i b l ey v. C u l l i ver, 3 7 7 F . 3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 2 0 5 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.