*The HONORABLE JOHN R. TUNHEIM, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1115

___________

Renae Greene, *

*

Petitioner - Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

James Washington, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 11, 2001

Filed: July 20, 2001

___________

Before LOKEN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and

TUNHEIM,* District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Renae Greene is serving consecutive life and thirty-year prison

terms for armed robbery and armed criminal action. Her conviction and sentence were

affirmed by the Missouri Court of Appeals, her motion for state post-conviction relief

was denied by the trial court, and that ruling was affirmed by the Missouri Court of

Appeals on September 24, 1996. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
1The HONORABLE ORTRIE D. SMITH, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-

Act (“AEDPA”), she had one year from that date to file a petition for federal habeas

corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(d)(1)(A) & (d)(2).

Instead, she filed a motion to recall the mandate in the Missouri Court of Appeals on

January 11, 1999, which was promptly denied, and then filed this § 2254 petition on

May 14, 1999. The district court1 dismissed the petition as time-barred, and Ms.

Greene appealed. The court then granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of

equitable tolling, observing that “the circumstances under which AEDPA’s time

limitations may be equitably tolled are not completely settled in this circuit.”

On appeal, Ms. Greene argues, as she did in the district court, that AEDPA’s

one-year statute of limitations should be equitably tolled in this case because her postconviction attorney mistakenly advised Ms. Greene that the filing of a motion to recall

the mandate in the Missouri Court of Appeals after the one year limitations period had

expired would “afford [Ms. Greene] a new one year period before her time to file a

2254 action lapses.” However, while her appeal was pending, this court issued its

decision in Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460, 463 (8th Cir. 2000), petition for cert.

filed, __ U.S.L.W. ____ (U.S. June 11, 2001) (No. 00-10520), which rejected the

contention that equitable tolling is appropriate when counsel has misled a petitioner as

to the applicable limitations period: 

Equitable tolling is proper only when extraordinary circumstances beyond

a prisoner’s control make it impossible to file a [§ 2254] petition on time.

. . . Even in the case of an unrepresented prisoner alleging a lack of legal

knowledge or legal resources, equitable tolling has not been warranted.

. . . Thus, tolling is even less appropriate in a case where the petitioner

is represented by counsel. . . . We agree with those courts that have

found that counsel’s confusion about the applicable statute of limitations

does not warrant equitable tolling.
-3-

(Citations omitted.) Ms. Greene urges us to reconsider Kreutzer, but a panel of this

court may not do so. Applying Kreutzer, the district court was correct in concluding

that Ms. Greene can point to no extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable

tolling of the AEDPA statute of limitations, and its judgment must be affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.