[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 44 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 0- cv -0 05 17 -MC R-M D MELDON RICH, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 15 , 20 13 ) Befo re HULL, JORDAN an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-10441 Date Filed: 03/15/2013 Page: 1 of 5Mel do n R ic h, a F lo rid a p ris on er p ro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di sm is sa l o f

hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 fed eral habe as pe ti ti on as t im e-b arre d u nd er the Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ct(AEDPA). W e g ran te d R ic h’s m ot io n fo r a certi fic at e o f ap pe al ab il ity (COA) as to th e fo ll owi ng is su e: Whe th er th e d is tri ctco urt erredinfin di ng th atRic h’s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 habe as co rp us pe ti ti on was t im e-b arre d b as edon it s fi nd in g t ha t Ri ch ’s Sep te m be r 18 , 20 08 , em erg en cy

pe ti ti on for

habe as co rp us was n otpro pe rly fil edan d d idno t t ol l the on e-year ti m e li m it at io n fo r fi li ng a habe as co rp us pe ti ti on . 1 W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f a s ta te pri so ne r’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n a s ti m e-b arre d de no vo . Gor byv. McNei l , 53 0 F .3d13 63 , 13 66 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r an d “ m us t af firm th e co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs un le ss th e rec or d l ack s s ub st an ti al ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he co urt’s d et erm in at io ns .” Clark v. Cr os by , 33 5 F .3d13 03 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . The AEDPA pro vi de s fo r a o ne -y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns forst at e p ris on ers wis hi ng to fil e a fed eral habe as pe ti ti on . 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (1 ). The l im it at io n pe rio d b eg in s t o ru n fr om th e la stof f

ou r di ffer en t trig ge rin g e ve nt s, the rel ev an t The parties do not dispute that the issue of whether Rich’s § 2254 petition was timely turns 1 on whether his September 2008 petitio n wa s “prope rly filed” so as to toll the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations. 2

Case: 12-10441 Date Filed: 03/15/2013 Page: 2 of 5on e in th is cas e b ei ng “ th e d at e o n wh ic h t he jud gm en t b ecame fin al by the

co nc lu si on of d ire ctrev ie w or t he ex pi rat io n o f th e ti m e fo r se ek in g s uc h re vi ew.” Id. § 2 24 4( d) (1 )(A). The st atut e al so pro vi de s tha t the “ ti m e dur in g wh ic h a pr op erl y fil edap pl ic at io n fo r St at e p os t-c on vi ct io n o r ot he r co ll at eral rev ie w with res pe ctto th e p ert in en t ju dg m en t o r cl ai m is pe nd in g s ha ll no t b e co un te d t owa rd an y pe rio d o f li m it at io n u nd er thi s s ub se ct io n.” Id. § 2 24 4( d) (2 ). In Art uzv. Benn et t , th e Supr em e Co urt s ta te d tha t “ anap pl ic at io n i s

‘ pr op er lyfil ed ’ whe n i ts de li ve ry an d a ccep ta nc e are inco m pl ia nc e wit h t he ap pl ic ab le laws an d ru le s g ov ern in g fi li ng s.” 5 31 U.S. 4, 8 (20 00 ) (em ph as is in or ig in al ). The Art uzCo urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t the laws an d ru le s g ov ern in g fi li ng s

“us ua ll y pre sc rib e, fo r ex am

pl e, th e fo rm

of t he do cu m en t, the ti m e li m it s upo n i ts de li ve ry , th e co urt an d o ffi ce i n wh ic h i t m us t b e lo dg ed , andth e requi si te fil in g fee.” Id

“ Und er Fl or id a la w, an i nd iv idua l co nv ic te d o f a n on cap it al cri m e m us t, with l im it edex cep ti on s, fi le a co ll at eral po st -co nv ic ti on ch al le ng e to hi s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e v iaa Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n ra th er tha n ahabe as co rp us pe ti ti on .” Th omp so n v . Sec ’y, Dep ’t o f Co rr s. , 59 5 F .3d12 33 , 12 36 -3 7; Fla . R. Cri m . P. 3.8 50 ( l). Ru le 3.8 50 (b ) es tabl is he s a two- y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns with cert ai n e xc ep ti on s. Fl a. R. Cri m . P. 3.8 50 (b ). 3 Case: 12-10441 Date Filed: 03/15/2013 Page: 3 of 5Fl or id a’s Fi rs t Di st ric t Co urt o f App eal reject edRic h’s h ab eas pe ti ti on ,

st at in g: Ri chfil edanem erg en cy

pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us inth e ci rcu itco urt o f Esc am

bi a Co un ty on S ep te m

be r 22 , 20 08 . A pet it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us ge ne ral ly m ay no t b e u se d t o c ol la te ral ly at ta cka co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e. In st ead , a co ll at eral ch al le ng e to a jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti onan d s en te nc e m us t b e rai se d i n am ot io n fi le d un de r ru le 3.8 50 , Flo rid a Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e, an d n otina pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us . Se e Bak er v. Stat e , 87 8 S o. 2 d 12 36 (Fl a. 20 04 ). Ric h h as alr eady so ug htrel ie f pu rs ua ntto rul e 3.8 50 , andth e m eri ts of t hi s p et it io n wer e co ns id eredby a circu it co urt. Thu s, ev enif the habe as pe ti ti on were treat edas am ot io n un de r ru le 3.8 50 , itwou ldbe im pe rm is si bl e as su cces si ve , Hut to v. St at e , 98 1 S o. 2 d 1 23 6 (F la . 1s t DCA 2 00 8) , andas u nt im el y , si nc e Ri ch ’s con vi ct io ns form

ur de r an d s ex ua l b at te ry

be cam e fi na l i n 20 01 . Rul e 3 .85 0( b) (im

po si ng a two -y ear wi nd ow o f ti m e to fil e a m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f in a no n- cap it al cas e). Rich v. Stat e , Cas e No. 1 D08 -5 97 6 a t 2 (Fl a. 1s t DCA Se pt . 10 , 20 09 ) (fo ot no te om itte d) . The di stric t co urt d idno t err in de te rm in in g t ha t Ri ch ’s 20 08 pe ti ti on was no t “pr op erl y

fil ed ” wit hi n t he m ean in g o f 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (2 ). The Fl or id a Fi rs t Di st ric t Co urt o f App eal fir stco nc lu de d t ha t al th ou gh Ric h s tyledhi s m ot io n as an“ Em erg en cy

Pet it io n fo r Writof Habe as Co rp us ,” itwas aco ll at eral ch al le ng e to a jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on whi chm us t b e rai se d i n aFlo rid a Ru le of Cri m in al Pro cedur e 3 .85 0 m ot io n. Th e Fi rs t Di st ric t Co urt o f App eal th en de te rm in edth atev enif h is pe ti ti on were co ns tru edas aRu le 3.8 50 m ot io n, i t was 4 Case: 12-10441 Date Filed: 03/15/2013 Page: 4 of 5su cces si ve an d u nt im el y . Alth ou gh Ric h a rg ue s tha t the cla im rai se d i n h is pe ti ti on qu al ifi edfor

anex cep ti on to Flo rid a’s ti m e requi rem en ts un de r Ru le 3.8 50 , “ [w]hena po st co nv ic ti on pe ti ti on is un ti m el y un de r st at e law, th atis th e en d o f th e m at te r fo r pu rp os es of § 22 44 (d )(2 ).” Pac e v. DeGugl ie lmo , 54 4 U.S. 40 8, 4 14 (20 05 ). Thu s, Ri ch ’s Sep te m be r 20 08 pe ti ti on di d n otto ll th e o ne -y ear st atut e o f li m it at io ns un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (1 ) an d t he di st ric t co urt d idno t err in di sm is si ng th e § 22 54 pe ti ti on as t im e-b arre d. AFFIRMED.

5 Case: 12-10441 Date Filed: 03/15/2013 Page: 5 of 5