FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 30, 2008 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. 08- 10605 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 9 3 - 0 0 2 9 0 - CR- U W C- RRA U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D A N I E L E D W A R D S C O T T , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ 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 r th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 30, 2008) B efo re H U L L , 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: D a ni e l E dw a r d S c ott , pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l ofIn 1 97 7, Sc ott wa s f ound guilty in f e deral c ourt

of ba nk robb e ry, c on sp ira c y

to c ommit 1 ba nk robb e ry and po sse ssi on

of a sawe d o ff

sh otgun and sentenc e d toa

term of 25 ye ars ’ imp ri so nment. 2 hi s m ot i on for r es ent enci ng , fi l ed pu rs uantt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 9(c) (7). A ft er r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D A . C r i m i n al T r i al an d A p p e al I n 1993, S c ottw a s c onvi c t e d of one c ountof

ba nk r obbe r y , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2113( a ) a nd ( d) , a nd one c ountof us i ng a nd c a r r y i ng a f

i r e a r m dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i on t o a c r i m e of vi ol e nc e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( 1) . T he pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ) s ho w ed thatS cotthad 1 0 cri m i nal hi st ory p o i n t s , r e s u l t i n g i n ac r i mi n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y V . Th r e e o f th o s e p o i n t s i n th e PSI w e r e due t o S c ott ’ s 1977 f e de r a l c onvi c t i ons f

orba nk r obbe r y , c ons pi r a c y a nd pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m . N o obj e c t i ons w e r e f i l e d a s t o thos e c onvi c t i ons orthe 1 c r im in a l h is to r y c a te g o r y . A s a resu l t , i n A p ri l 1 9 9 4 , th e d i stri ctco u rtsen t en ced S co ttt o 9 6 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nton the ba nk r obbe r y c ounta nd 240 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nton the f i r e a r m c ount , w i th t e r m s t o run c ons e c ut i ve l y . T he di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d the 240- m on th sent ence on the fi re arm coun tbecause S cotthad t he pri or 19 77 fe dera l conv i ct i on for c arry i ng a f i re arm i n v i ol at i on of § 9 24 (c ). In 19 94 , § 9 24 (c )In 1998, § 924(c) was amended to providefor a 25-year statutory minimumfor a 2 defendant with a prior § 924( c) c onviction. Pub. L . No. 105-386, § 1(a)(1) , 112 Stat. 3469, 3469 (1998). 3 pr ovi de d a m a nda t or y m i ni m um 20- y e a rt e r m of i m pr i s onm e nt , r a the rtha n a m i ni m um 5-ye art erm of i m pri sonm ent , i f the defendanthad a pri or § 9 24 (c ) conv i ct i on . S ee 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (c ) ( 19 94 ). 2 T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t k n o w w h e n it s e n te n c e d S c o tt in 1 9 9 4 th a t, in 1 9 7 8 , S c o tt’s 1 9 7 7 § 9 2 4 ( c ) c o n v ic tio n h a d b e e n r e v e r s e d a n d r e m a n d e d w ith i ns truc t i ons t o va c a t e hi s s e nt e nc e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S t e w a r t , 579 F . 2d 356, 358 ( 5th C i r . 1978) . T hi s f a c tw a s notbr oughtt o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a tt e nt i on or ra ised o n d irec t ap p ea l o f th e 1 9 9 3 co n v icti o n s a n d se n ten ce s. In stea d , S co tt ’s di re ctappeal ra i se d t w o i ss ues unrel at ed t o the vacat i on of hi s 197 7 § 92 4(c) conv i ct i on . T hi s C ou rtaf fi rm ed hi s 199 3 con vi ct i on s a nd se nt ence s on D ec em ber 8, 19 94 . U ni t ed S t at es v. S cott , N o. 94 -637 4 (11 th C i r. D ec . 8, 19 94 ). B. Thr e e Pr i o r Po s t -j udg m e nt M o t i o ns A l m os tf oury e a r s l a t e r , S c ottf

i l e d a l e tt e ri n the di s tr i c tc our ta s ki ng t o ha ve h is 1 9 9 4 s e n te n c e o n h is § 9 2 4 ( c ) c o n v ic tio n a m e n d e d p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) . I n thi s l e tt e r , S c otta r gue d f orthe f i r s tt i m e tha the s houl d notha ve re ce i ved t he enhanced 20 -y ea r m andat ory m i ni m um because hi s pri or § 9 24 (c ) conv i ct i on had b ee n revers ed i n 1 97 8. A m agi stra t e j ud ge construed S cott ’ s l ett er4

a s a m ot i on t o va c a t e ors e ta s i de hi s 1994 s e nt e nc e unde r28 U . S . C . § 2255 a nd r e c om m e nde d tha tS c ott ’ s § 2255 m ot i on be di s m i s s e d a s t i m e - ba r r e d. S c o tt f ile d o b je c tio n s to th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s r e p o r t, a r g u in g th a t h is m ot i on shou l d b e c on si dere d t i m el y bec ause he had i neff ec t i ve coun se l on di re ct appeal , he had b ee n u nabl e t o com m un i ca t e w i th h i s a tt orney duri ng the appeal p ro cess an d h e o n l y l at er l earn ed h i s att o rn ey d i ed d u ri n g th e ap p eal . S co ttal so s t a t e d tha the s e nta l e tt e rt o hi s a tt or ne y a s ki ng hi m t o r a i s e on di r e c tappe a l the i ss ue of the vacat ed pri or § 9 24 (c ) c on vi ct i on . O ver S cott ’ s obj ec t i on s, the di stri ct c our ta dopt e d the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on ( “ R & R ” ) a nd d e n ie d S c o tt’s c o n s tru e d § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . S cottappeal ed the deni al of hi s m ot i on . In A pri l 19 99 , thi s C ou rtdeni ed S cott ’ s m ot i on for ace rt i fi ca t e of app ea l abi l i ty ( “ C O A ”) , concl ud i ng thathe had f a ile d to m a k e a s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. In M ar ch 20 02 , S cottfi l ed an appl i ca t i on w i th thi s C ou rtfor l ea ve t o fi l e a s e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on, a ga i n r a i s i ng the i s s ue of hi s va c a t e d pr i or § 924( c ) c onvi c t i on. I n A pr i l 2002, thi s C our tde ni e d S c ott ’ s appl i c a t i on, concl ud i ng thatS cott ’ s c l ai m s w er e notbase d o n n ew l y di sc ov er ed evi dence or a n e w ru l e o f

c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l a w. In Ja nu ary 200 3, S cottfi l ed a m ot i on for r el i ef fr om the j ud gm entun der5

F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 60 (b)( 6) i n w hi ch he rai se d the i ss ue of hi s vac at ed pr i or§ 924( c ) c onvi c t i on. H e a l s o a r gue d tha thi s a tt or ne y ’ s de a th dur i ng the di r e c tc r i m i na l appe a l t ol l e d the one - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons f

orf i l i ng § 2255 m o tio n s a n d c o n s titu te d e x tr a o r d in a r y c ir c u m s ta n c e s ju s tif y in g th e r e o p e n in g o f

h is § 2 2 5 5 p ro ceed i n g s. I n J a nua r y 2006, a m a gi s tr a t e j udge r e c om m e nde d de ny i ng the R ul e 60( b) m ot i on because i tw as un t i m el y a nd di d n otdem on stra t e e xtra ordi nary c i r c um s t a nc e s . T he R & R a l s o not e d tha tS c ottpr e vi ous l y ha d r a i s e d the i s s ue of hi s c ouns e l ’ s de a th i n hi s i ni t i a l § 2255 m ot i on a nd c onc l ude d tha tthi s a r gum e nt w as i nsuffi ci entthen and no w t o o verc om e the t i m e bar . T he di stri ctcourtadop t ed the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s R & R a nd de ni e d S c ott ’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. S c ottappe a l e d, a nd thi s C our tc ons true d hi s not i c e of appe a l a s a C O A a nd de ni e d i ton J une 12, 2006. C . M ot i on on A p p e al N ow O n A pri l 6, 20 07 , S cottfi l ed the m ot i on ati ss ue i n thi s app ea l , t i t l ed

“ M ot i on f

orR e s e nt e nc i ng U nde rT i t l e 18 U S C § 3559( c ) ( 7) . ” S c otta r gue d tha the shou l d b e r es ent ence d b ec ause the di stri ctcourtre l i ed on hi s vac at ed pri or § 9 24 (c ) c o n v ic tio n to im p o s e th e 2 4 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e . A s w ith p r io rm o tio n s , S c o tt cont ended h e w as un aw ar e thathi s 197 7 § 92 4(c) conv i ct i on had b ee n v ac at ed at6

th e tim e o f

h is 1 9 9 4 s e n te n c in g . H e a ls o m a in ta in e d th a t h e s e n t a le tte rto h is a tt or ne y i n O c t obe r1994 a s ki ng tha tthe § 924( c ) i s s ue be r a i s e d, butr e c e i ve d no re spon se . H e di d n otl ea rn un t i l 19 98 thathi s a tt orney di ed af t erfi l i ng a di re ct appe a l br i e f

a nd tha tthi s C our tha d a f f i r m e d hi s f

i r e a r m c onvi c t i on. Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td e n i e d Sc o tt ’ s mo t i o n , c o n c l u d i n g th a ti tr a i s e d th e s a me i s s ue s S c ottpr e vi ous l y r a i s e d i n hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on f orr e l i e f f r om the j udgm e nt and t hatthe courtand t hi s C ou rtal re ady had di sposed of tho se i ss ues. S cottfi l ed th is ap p e a l. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . S e c t i on 3559( c ) ( 7) A tthe out s e t , w e not e tha t18 U . S . C . § 3559( c ) ( 7) doe s nota f f or d a ba s i s f

or r e s e n te n c in g S c o tt. S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . D ia z - C la r k , 2 9 2 F .3 d 1 3 1 0 , 1 3 1 5 - 1 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) (ex p l ai n i n g th atd i stri ctco u rt s d o n o th av e au th o ri ty t o m o d i fy a pr i s one r ’ s s e nt e nc e , e xc e ptt o the e xt e ntpr ovi de d by f e de r a l s t a tut or y pr ovi s i ons c ontr ol l i ng s e nt e nc i ng a nd the F e de r a l R ul e s of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e ) ; s e e a l s o 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (1)( B ). K now n a s the f

e de r a l “ thr e e s tr i ke s ” l a w , § 3559 be c a m e e f f e c t i ve on S e pt e m be r13, 1994. S e e P ub. L . N o. 103- 322, § 70001, 108 S t a t . 1796, 1982- 84 ( 1994) . U nde r§ 3559, a de f e nda nti s s ubj e c tt o a m a nda t or y l i f e t e r m ofSe c tio n 3 55 9 p ro vide s in re le va nt p art : 3 I f t hec onvic tio n f

or a seri ou s v iol e nt f

e lony or seri ou s d rugof fens ethat w a s a

ba sis for sentencingunder this subs ec tion is found, pursuant to any appropriate State or Fe deral proce dure, to beunconstitutional or is v itiated on the explicit basis of innocenc e, or if the convicted person is pa rdoned on the explicit basis of innocence , thepers on serv ing a sentenc e imp os e d un der thi s su bs e c tio n sh a ll b ere sentenc e d to any s ent en ce th atwa s av ai l ab l e atth e t i m e o f th e o ri gi n al s ent en ci n g. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(7) (empha sis added). 7 im p r is o n m e n t if

h e h a s c e r ta in p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 9 ( c ) . P ur s ua ntt o s ubs e c t i on ( c ) ( 7) , a de f e nda ntm a y be r e s e nt e nc e d i f a pr i orc onvi c t i on th a t “w a s a b a s is f

o rs e n te n c in g ” u n d e r§ 3 5 5 9 is o v e r tu r n e d a s u n c o n s titu tio n a l. 3 S c ott ’ s pr i or§ 924( c ) c onvi c t i on w a s the ba s i s f ora pe na l ty e nha nc e m e nt un der § 92 4(c) , no tfor al i fe se nt ence un der § 35 59 (c ). Indeed, S cottw as s e n te n c e d in A p r il 1 9 9 4 , b e f o r e th e th r e e - s tr ik e s la w b e c a m e e f f e c tiv e , a n d c o u ld n o th av e b een sen t en ced u n d er th atl aw . T h erefo re, th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng S cott ’ s § 35 59 (c )( 7) m ot i on . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. W hi t e, 30 5 F . 3d 12 64 , 12 67 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ) ( re vi ew i ng a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a m ot i on fi l ed pu rs uantt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2) f or an abuse of di sc re t i on ). B . O th er P ost- C on vi ct i on R el i ef F eder al court s have “ an ob l i gat i on t o l oo k b ehi nd the l abel of a m ot i on fi l ed by a pro se i nm at e a nd det erm i ne w hether the m ot i on i s, i n eff ec t , cogn i zabl e und er a di f f e r e ntr e m e di a l s t a tut or y f r a m e w or k. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J or da n, 915 F . 2d 622, 624- 25 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . I n S c ott ’ s c a s e , F e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 35Neither the mag istrate judg e nor thedistrict court wa rned Scott of the potential 4 consequences of

construinghis 1998 letter as a § 2255 motion. S hortly

after the district cour

t denied Scott’s construe d § 2255 motion, the Supreme Court conclude d in Castro v. United States that a cour

t cannot re characterize a pro selitigant’s motion as a f irst § 2255 motion unl ess the court fir st informs the litigant of its intent to do so and war ns the litigant of therestric tions on se c on d o r s uc c e ssive§ 2 25 5 mo tio ns . 5 40 U. S. 3 75 , 3 77 , 1 24 S. Ct . 7 86 , 7 89 (2 00 3) . This raises theissue of whe ther Castro a pplies retroactively

to prec lude trig g eringthe re striction on succe ssive motions. However, w e nee d not answer this question because , even if Scott’s 2007 motion is construed a s a first § 2255 motion, it is time-barred. In his objections to the August 1998 R&R concludingthat Scott’s letter motion was 5 time-barred, Scott argued what he argues now – that his attorney ’s death prevented him from 8 d o es n o t p ro v id e a u th o rity fo r m o d ifyin g S co tt ’s se n ten ce b ec au se (1 ) S co tt ’s m ot i on w a s notf

i l e d w i thi n s e ve n da y s a f t e rs e nt e nc i ng a nd ( 2) the gove r nm e nt h a s n o t f ile d a m o tio n to r e d u c e S c o tt’s s e n te n c e b a s e d o n s u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e . S e e F e d. R . C r i m . P . 35( a ) , ( b) . A ddi t i ona l l y , none of the c ondi t i ons f

orr e duc i ng a n i n ma t e ’ s s e n t e n c e u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 8 2 a r e me t . Se e 1 8 U . S. C. § 3582( c ) ( 1) ( A ) , ( c ) ( 2) ( pe r m i tt i ng a di s tr i c tc our tt o m odi f y a pr i s on t e r m i f

the D i r e c t orof

the B ur e a u of

P r i s ons m ove s f

ora s e nt e nc e r e duc t i on ori f the de f e nda nt ’ s gui de l i ne s r a nge ha s be e n l ow e r e d by the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on pu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 9 94 (o)) . E v e n c o n s tru in g S c o tt’s m o tio n a s o n e f ile d p u r s u a n t to § 2 2 5 5 , S c o tt w o u ld no tbe ent i t l ed t o rel i ef

because hi s m ot i on i s t i m e- barr ed. T he di stri ctcourt 4 a l r e a dy r e

j e c t e d S c ott ’ s a r gum e nttha thi s a tt or ne y ’ s de a th a nd hi s f a i l ur e t o r e c e i ve not i c e of the di s pos i t i on of

hi s di r e c tappe a l pr e ve nt e d hi s 1998 l e tt e rm ot i on f r om bei ng t i m e- barr ed. F urtherm ore, thatre sul ti s c orre ctand w ou l d app l y w i th equ al 5lear

ning that his conviction had been aff irmed on appe al without the § 924(c) conviction issue beingraised. The district cour t overrule d Scott’s objections and adopte d the R&R, thus reje cting Sc ott ’s tol lin gargument. 9 forc e t o S cott ’ s 200 7 m ot i on ati ss ue here. A § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n is s u b

je c t to a o n e - y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s th a t b e g in s to run f r om the l a t e s tof

f oure ve nt s , the r e l e va nttr i gge ri n thi s c a s e be i ng the da t e on w h ic h S c o tt’s ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ic tio n b e c a m e f

in a l. S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 ( f ) ( 1 ) . S c ott ’ s c onvi c t i on be c a m e f i na l 90 da y s a f

t e rthi s C our ta f

f i r m e d hi s c onvi c t i on on D e c e m be r8, 1994. S e e C l a y v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 537 U . S . 522, 527, 123 S . C t . 1072, 1076 ( 2003) . B e c a us e S c ott ’ s c onvi c t i on be c a m e f i na l be f or e the e f

f e c t i ve da t e of th e A n tite r r o r is m a n d E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t ( “A E D P A ” ) , h e h a d u n til A p r il 23, 1997, t o f

i l e hi s § 2255 m ot i on. S e e G oodm a n v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 151 F . 3d 1335, 13 37 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ). S cottfi l ed the m ot i on no w on appeal al m ost10 ye ar s a ft er the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od e xpi r e d. T he on e- ye arst atut e of l i m i t at i on s i n the A E D P A “ ca n b e e qu i t abl y t ol l ed w here a pet i t i on erun t i m el y f i l es because of e xtra ordi nary ci rc um st ance s thatar e bo th b ey on d h i s c on trol and u navo i dabl e e ven w i th d i l i gence. ” O ut l erv. U ni t ed S ta te s , 4 8 5 F .3 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 8 S . C t. 1 4 4 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) . “T h e b u r d e n o f e s ta b lis h in g e n title m e n t to th is e xtr a or di na r y r e m e dy pl a i nl y r e s t s w i th the pe t i t i one r [ ] . ” I d. ( quot a t i on m a r ks10

om i tt ed). E ven ass um i ng S cott ’ s a l l egat i on s a re true, he has notdem on stra t ed extra ordi nary ci rc um st ance s thatw er e “ un avoi dabl e e ven w i th d i l i gence. ” A cc ordi ng t o S cott , atthe t i m e of hi s A pri l 19 94 se nt enci ng , he w as un aw ar e that h is 1 9 7 7 § 9 2 4 ( c ) c o n v ic tio n h a d b e e n v a c a te d . O n A u g u s t 1 , 1 9 9 4 , S c o tt w r o te to hi s a tt orney a ski ng for acopy of the appeal bri ef fi l ed on hi s behal f a nd other m a t e r i a l s r e l a t i ng t o hi s c a s e . O n A ugus t23, 1994, S c ott ’ s a tt or ne y r e s ponde d, advi si ng S cottthathe had j ustfi l ed the appeal bri ef and t hathe w ou l d send cop i es o f al l b ri efs fi l ed o n ce th e b ri efi n g sch ed u l e h ad b een co m p l et ed . T h e at t o rn ey al so s t a t e d tha the w oul d be i n t ouc h a s s oon a s he he a r d a ny thi ng. B y O ct ob er25 , 19 94 , S cottapparent l y had l ea rned thathi s 197 7 § 92 4(c) c onvi c t i on w a s va c a t e d be c a us e on tha tda t e he w r ot e t o hi s a tt or ne y a s ki ng tha tthe i s s ue be r a i s e i n hi s di r e c tappe a l . T he a tt or ne y di d notr e s pond t o S c ott ’ s l e tt e ror S cott ’ s other a tt em pt s t o con t ac thi m . S cottdi d n otre ce i ve a c op y of the appeal br i e f f i l e d on hi s be ha l f

a nd di d notknow w he the rhi s a tt or ne y ha d r a i s e d the 1977 § 9 2 4 ( c ) c o n v ic tio n is s u e in h is ap p e a l. S c o tt h e a r d n o th in g f u r th e rf r o m h is att o rn ey. A ft erw ai t i ng al m ostfour ye ar s, i n Jul y 199 8, S cottas ked h i s daugh t ert o t ry t o l ocat e hi s a tt orney. A ft erm aki ng a s er i es of ph on e c al l s, S cott ’ s daugh t er11

re po rt ed thatS cott ’ s a tt orney di ed on O ct ob er13 , 19 94 , and t hatthi s C ou rt a f f i r m e d hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s on D e c e m be r8, 1994. T he e xtr a or di na r y c i r c um s t a nc e s S c ottpoi nt s t o a r e hi s a tt or ne y ’ s de a th, w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n S c ottf a i l i ng t o l e a r n tha tthe § 924( c ) c onvi c t i on i s s ue ha d not been rai se d o n d i re ctappeal and t hathi s c on vi ct i on had b ee n aff i rm ed. E ven a s s um i ng the s e c i r c um s t a nc e s c oul d be c ons i de r e d “ e xtr a or di na r y , ” S c ottha s not a l l e ge d f a c t s s how i ng tha the a c t e d w i th the r e qui s i t e di l i ge nc e . S e e D ow ns v. M c N e il, 5 2 0 F .3 d 1 3 1 1 , 1 3 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( s ta tin g th a t in a d d itio n to e xtr a or di na r y c i r c um s t a nc e s , the pe t i t i one ra l s o m us ts how tha the e xe r c i s e d due di l i ge nc e t o e ns ur e hi s pe t i t i on w a s t i m e l y f i l e d) ; J ohns on v. F l or i da D e p’ tof C orrs . , 51 3 F . 3d 13 28 , 13 33 (11t h C i r. 20 08 ) ( expl ai ni ng that“ att orney negl i gence i s n o ta b asi s fo r eq u i t ab l e t o l l i n g , esp eci al l y w h en th e p et i t i o n er can n o test ab l i sh hi s ow n di l i ge nc e i n a s c e r t a i ni ng the f e de r a l ha be a s f

i l i ng de a dl i ne ” ( quot a t i on m arks om i tt ed)) . A l tho ug h t he di l i gence re qu i re m ent“ do es no tre qu i re a pri soner to u n d e r ta k e r e p e a te d e x e r c is e s in f u tility o rto e x h a u s t e v e r y im a g in a b le o p tio n ,” it doe s r e qui r e hi m t o “ m a ke r e a s ona bl e e f f or t s . ” D ow ns , 520 F . 3d a t1323. If the fa ct s S cotthas a l l eged are true, S cottkn ew by O ct ob er25 , 19 94 , that the 19 77 § 9 24 (c ) c on vi ct i on supp ort i ng hi s s ent enci ng enhancem enthad b ee n v a c a te d . H e a ls o k n e w th a t h is a tto r n e y a lr e a d y h a d f ile d h is ap p e a l b r ie f

inScott’s motion cannot be construe d as a 28 U .S.C. § 2241 m otion filed under the 6 “ saving s c la

us e ”in 2 8 U .S. C. § 22 55 be c a us ehis c laim i s n ot b a se d o n a retroac tiv e ly

a pp lic a ble Supreme Court dec ision. S ee Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236, 1244-45 (11th Cir. 1999). N or wo uld Sc ott bee nti tle d tore lie f pur su ant to a writ o f error

c oram nobis or

a writ o f a udita quere la. 12 A ugus t1994 a nd ha d pr om i s e d t o s e nd hi m c opi e s of the br i e f s onc e br i e f

i ng c onc l ude d. Y e t , w he n he di d nothe a rf r om hi s a tt or ne y orr e c e i ve c opi e s of the br i e f s , S c ottdi d nothi ng f

orove rthr e e - a nd- a - ha l f y e a r s . D ur i ng tha tpe r i od, the A E D P A to o k e f

f e c t, a n d th e o n e - y e a rlim ita tio n s p e r io d e x p ir e d o n A p r il 2 3 , 1 9 9 7 . O n ly a y e a r - a n d - a - h a lf

a f te rth e lim ita tio n s p e r io d e x p ir e d d id S c o tt a s k h is daug ht ert o l ocat e hi s a tt orney a nd det erm i ne the st atus of hi s di re ctcr i m i nal appeal . T hu s, S cottdi d n otm ake r ea sonabl e e ff ort s t o asc ert ai n i n a t i m el y m anner th e s ta tu s o f

h is d ir e c t c r im in a l ap p e a l o rh is f e d e r a l h a b e a s f

ilin g d e a d lin e a n d is n o t en ti tl ed to eq u it ab le to ll in g o f th e lim it atio n s p er io d . A cc o rd in g ly, S co tt ’s 2 0 0 7 m o tio n , f

ile d a lm o s t te n y e a r s a f

te rth e o n e - y e a rlim ita tio n s p e r io d e x p ir e d , is t i m e - ba r r e d. 6 AF F I RME D.