FILED U.S. COURT OF AP PEALS ELEV ENT HC IR C UIT MAY 30 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN 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. 05- 13596 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 0 0 0 3 6 - C V- 1 - MP - AK A L O N Z O M O O R E , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J A M E S C R O S B Y , C H A R L I E C R I S T , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt forthe N or the r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________

( M ay 30, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A R N E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A ppe l l a nt , A l onz o M oor e , aF l or i dapr i s one rpr oc e e di ng p ro se , a ppe a l s the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is fe d e r a l h ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n , c h a lle n g in g h is c onvi c ti on fora r m e d r obbe r y , br oughtpur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2254. T he ce rti fi ca t e of app ea l abi l i ty ( “ C O A ”) i n the pres entappeal concerns w hether C oa tes v. B yrd , 2 1 1 F .3 d 1 2 2 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( h o ld in g th a t th e 9 0 - d a y p e r io d a llo w e d in § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) o n ly a p p lie s w h e n c a lc u la tin g th e f in a lity o f as ta te c o u r t ju d g m e n t, n o t ap o s t- c o n v ic tio n m o tio n ) , is s till th e p r o p e rm e th o d o f c a lc u la tin g th e s ta tu te of l i m i t a ti ons . O n appe a l , M oor e a r gue s tha tthe one - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a ti on c ont a i ne d i n 28 U . S . C . § 2244( d) ( 1) forf i l i ng ahabe a s c orpus pe ti ti on s houl d be i nt erpret ed as bei ng t ol l ed du ri ng the ni nety- day per i od w here i n a pri soner m ay pet i ti on the U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rtfor cert i o ra ri . W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s det er m i nat i on thata peti ti on for f eder al habeas corpus re l i ef

i s ti m e- barr ed un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(d) de no vo . B o n dv. M o o re , 3 0 9 F .3 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e A n tite rr o r is m a n d E f fe c tiv e D e a th P enal ty A ctof 19 96 (“ A E D P A ”) , P ub . L . N o. 10 4-32 , 11 0 S t at . 12 14 (199 6), e s t abl i s he d aone - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a ti ons forpe ti ti ons f i l e d unde r§ 2254. § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) . T h is lim ita tio n s p e r io d b e g in s to r u n , i nt er a lia , on the dat e on w hi ch the j udgm e ntbe c om e s f i na l by the c onc l us i on of di r e c tr e vi e w orthe e xpi r a ti on of th e tim e fo rs e e k in g s u c h r e v ie w . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) .3

W he n apr ope r l y f

i l e d s t a t e pos t - c onvi c ti on m oti on i s pe ndi ng, the s t a tut e of lim ita tio n s is to lle d . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) . A s ta te p o s t- c o n v ic tio n m o tio n is “p e n d in g ” o n ly a s lo n g a s th e c a s e is in th e s ta te c o u r ts . C o a tes, 2 1 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 7 . W e s peci fi ca l l y hel d that“ the t i m e duri ng w hi ch a peti ti on for w ri tof cert i o ra riis pe ndi ng, orc oul d ha ve be e n f i l e d, fol 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 ta te c o u r ts , is n o t to b e s u b tr a c te d f r o m th e r u n n in g o f

tim e fo r2 8 U .S .C . § 22 44 (d)( 1) st atut e of l i m i t ati on s purpo se s. ” I d. T hi s m e a ns tha tthe s t a tut e of lim ita tio n s is n o t to lle d d u r in g th e n in e ty - d a y p e r io d in w h ic h th e p e titio n e rc o u ld h a v e s o u g h t S u p r e m e C o u r t r e v ie w o f th e d e n ia l o f

h is p o s t- c o n v ic tio n m o tio n . I d. I n as im ila rc a s e , w h e r e th e is s u e w a s “w h e th e rth e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s is t ol l ed du ri ng the pend ency of a peti ti on for w ri tof ce rti orar i i n the U ni t ed S t at es S upr e m e C our tc ha l l e ngi ng the s t a t e c our t ' s de ni a l of pe ti ti one r ' s e a r l i e rm oti on for s t a t e c ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w , ” w e he l d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n e ve n gr a nti ng the C O A . See L aw r e nc e v . F l or i da , 4 2 1 F .3 d 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 4 - 2 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , cert . gran ted , 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 6 2 5 ( U .S . M a r . 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( N o . 0 5 - 8 8 2 0 ) ( s ta tin g th a t,

“ [ b] e c a us e of

the s t a tut or y c ons tr a i nti n i s s ui ng aC O A , w e a r e puz z l e d by the di s tr i c tc our t ' s i s s ua nc e of aC O A i n thi s c a s e . T he di s tr i c tc our ts houl d notha ve i s s ue d aC O A on the s t a tut e of l i m i t a ti ons i s s ue be c a us e bi ndi ng c i r c ui tpr e c e de nt c le a r ly d is p o s e d o f

th e is s u e .” ) . W e r e ite r a te d th a t C oa tes d is p o s e d o f th e is s u e .4

I d. a t 1 2 2 5 . W e a r e b o u n d b y o u ro w n p r e c e d e n t. See Uni ted Stat es v. St ee l e, 147 F . 3d 1316, 1317- 18 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( e n ba nc ) ( hol di ng, “ unde rourpr i orpr e c e de nt r u le , ap a n e l c a n n o t o v e rr u le ap r io ro n e 's h o ld in g e v e n th o u g h c o n v in c e d it is w r o n g ” ) . B ec ause the ni nety- day per i od for s ee ki ng U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rt r e vi e w fol l ow i ng the s t a t e c our tde ni a l of pos t - c onvi c ti on r e l i e f

doe s nott ol l the ti m e c ount e d i n de t e r m i ni ng the one - y e a rt i m e l i m i t , w e a f f i r m the j udgm e ntof d is m is s a l. AF F I RME D.