FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 1, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 73 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 0: 09 -cv -6 08 88 -MGC, 0: 04 -cr- 60 10 7- MGC-1 THOMAS J. FOLEY, III, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
vers us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, l l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t. .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 1, 2 01 1) Befo re WILSON, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Tho m as J. Fo le y , III, a fed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s p ro se t he di sm is sa l o f hi sm ot io n t o v acat e h is sen te nc e. 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5. Th e d is tri ctco urt ru le d t ha t

Fo le y ’s m ot io n was un ti m el y an d t ha t Fo le y

was n oten ti tl edto fil e an ou t-o f-t im e di rectap pe al ba se d o n i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l. Bec au se Fo le y ’s m ot io n
was un ti m el y , we nee d n otreac h t he is su e o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. We affi rm . Fo le y co nc ed es th athe fil edhi s m ot io n t o v acat e m or e th anon e y ear a fte r hi s ju dg m en t o f co nv ic ti on be cam e fi na l o n M ay 9, 2 00 8, i d. § 22 55 (f)(1 ), bu t Fo le y co nt en ds th athe is en ti tl edto equi tabl e to ll in g. Fo le y , a co ll eg e g radua te , al le ge s t ha t a p ris on law cl erkpro vi de d h im th e wro ng form

forfil in g am ot io n t o
va cat e in Apri l 2 00 9, ap pr ox im at el y on e m on th be fo re the li m it at io ns pe rio d fo r fil in g h is m ot io n h adexpi red . Ins te adof f il in g am ot io n t o v acat e h is sen te nc e, Fo le y th enfil edin th is Co urt an ap pl ic at io n fo r le av e to fil e a s uc ces si ve m ot io n, whi chwe de ni edas u nn eces sa ry . On Ju ne 9, 2 00 9, Fo le y fil eda m ot io n t o v acat e in th e d is tri ctco urt. Fo le y als o a rg ue s t ha t t hi s C ou rt s ho ul d h av e tr an sf erre d h is ap pl ic at io n t o t he di st ric t co urt wh ere i t co ul d h av e b een co ns tru edas a n o rig in al
m ot io n b efo re the li m it at io ns pe rio d e xp ire d. W e rev ie w de n ov o adi sm is sa l o f a m ot io n t o v acat e as un ti m el y . Out le r v. Uni te d S ta te s, 4 85 F.3d12 73 , 12 78 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). W e rev ie w any fin di ng s o f factfor cle ar erro r. Dors ey

v. Ch ap m an , 26 2 F .3d11 81 , 11 85 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ).

2W e wil l af

firm fin di ng s o f fac t u nl es s “ ‘the reco rdlac ks subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce’” to
supp ort t he m . Ligh tn in g v . Roa dwa y Exp res s, In c., 60 F.3d15 51 , 15 58 (11 th Cir
. 19 95 ) (quo ti ng Thel m a C. Ral ey , Inc . v. Kle pp e, 86 7 F .2d13 26 , 13 28 (11 th Cir
. 19 89 )). Equ it ab le to ll in g o f th e li m it at io ns pe rio d fo r a m ot io n t o v acat e is an

“ ex tra or di na ry

rem edy ” th atis to be ap pl ie d s pa rin gl y , andth e b ur de n fo r
es tabl is hi ng eli gi bi li ty for equi tabl e to ll in g fa ll s s qu arel y on th e p ris on er. Out le r, 48 5 F .3dat 1 28 1. We hav e ex pl ai ne d t ha t equi tabl e to ll in g “ is av ai labl e o nl y if a [p ris on er] est ab li sh es bo th ex tra or di na ry cir cu m st an ces an d due di li ge nc e.” Dia z v. Se c’y of De p’t o f Co rr., 36 2 F .3d69 8, 7 02 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). In Ho ll an d v
. Fl or id a, th e Supr em e Co urt re cen tl y ex pl ai ne d t ha t eq ui tabl e to ll in g re qu ire s

“ reas on ab le di li ge nc e” i ns te adof “ m ax im um feas ib le di li ge nc e.” 5 60 U.S. __ , 13 0 S. Ct . 25 49 , 25 65 (20 10 ). “ [A] dete rm in at io n re ga rd in g aparty’ s d il ig en ce i s a fin di ng of f

actth at‘ wil l n otbe di sturbe d u nl es s cl earl y erro ne ou s.’” Drew v. Dep ’t of Co rr., 29 7 F .3d12 78 , 12 83 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (quo ti ng W al te rs v. Ci ty of Atl an ta , 80 3 F .2d11 35 , 11 45 (11 th Cir . 19 86 )). The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g t ha t Fo le y

fai le d t o e xe rci se
reas on ab le di li ge nc e, whi ch m ean s t ha t Fo le y is no t en ti tl edto equi tabl e to ll in g o f th e li m it at io ns pe rio d fo r hi s m ot io n. Th e fo rm th atFo le y

us edto fil e an ap pl ic at io n fo r a s uc ces si ve m ot io n c le arl y ex pl ai ne d t ha t i t was forpri so ne rs who
3ha d p rev io us ly file d am ot io n t o v acat e, an d t he reco rdsupp orts th e fi nd in g b y th e di st ric t co urt t ha t Fo le y ’s cou ns el ha d e xp la in edto hi m th e p ro ces s fo r se ek in g
co ll at eral rel ie f fo ll owi ng Fo le y ’s di rectap pe al . In ad di ti on , nei th er the rul e, Fed
. R. App . P. 22 (a), n or

th e st atut e, 28 U.S.C. § 1 63 1, ci te d b y Fo le y ob li ge d t hi s Co urt t o t ran sf

er Fo le y ’s app li cat io n fo r a s uc ces si ve m ot io n t o t he di st ric t co urt fo r fi li ng as a n o rig in al m ot io n. Gru en th er v . Hol t, 1 73 F.3d13 28 (11 th Cir
. 19 99 ). W e aff

irm th e d is m is sa l o f Fo le y ’s m ot io n t o v acat e as un ti m el y . AFFIRMED.

4