[DO N OT PUBLISH]

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 28 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cv -0 04 57 -CG; 1: 06 -cr- 00 06 2- CG-C- 1 JOSE EDUARDO LOPEZ, a.k .a. Liel o, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, vers us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Resp on de nt -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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 18 , 20 13 ) Befo re HULL, JORDAN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-10281 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 1 of 8Jo se Edu ard o Lo pe z, th ro ug h c ou ns el , app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l

of hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n t o v acat e h is sen te nc e as un ti m el y . Lop ez co nc ed es th athe fil edhi s m ot io n 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. Ho wev er, h e arg ue s t ha t h e was en ti tl edto equi tabl e to ll in g b ecau se hi s at to rn ey fai le d t o n ot ify him of

our Mar ch 20 09 de ci si on on hi s di rectap pe al un ti l Au gu st12 , 20 10 , andhe fil edwithi n o ne y ear o f rec ei vi ng no ti ce. He arg ue s t ha t h e was reas on ab ly dil ig en t i n s eek in g upd at es onhi s ap pe al be cau se he tri edto cal l h is att orne y m on th ly thro ug ho ut20 09 an d e arl y 20 10 , and se nthi s at to rn ey

let te rs on Ju ly 8, 20 10 , andAug us t 7 , 20 10 . After t ho ro ug h rev ie w of t he reco rd , we affi rm . 1 W e rev ie w de no vo th e le ga l i ss ue of wh ethe r a § 22 55 m ot io n i s ti m e-b arre d. Mur

ph y v. Uni te d Sta tes , 63 4 F .3d13 03 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f equi tabl e to ll in g de no vo an d i ts factua l de te rm in at io ns , in cl ud in g fi nd in gs reg ard in g apa rty’ s d il ig en ce, fo r cl ear e rro r. Arthu r v. Al le n , 45 2 F .3d12 34 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); Amad eo v. Za nt , 48 6 U.S. 21 4, 2 23 , 10 8 S . Ct. 1 77 1, 1 77 7 (1 98 8) (“ It i s wel l s et tl ed. . . th ata fed eral

Alternatively , L opez argues that the district cour t erre d by failingto hold an 1 evidentiar y hearing on his c laim that counsel fa iled to notify him of the dispositi on of his appea l and the right to file a

petition for writ of certiorari , which would entitle him to relief unde r Lacaze v. U

nited States , 457 F.2d 1075, 1078 ( 5th Cir. 1972). Howeve r, we decline to c onsider this argument as it is outsi de the sc ope of the cer tificate of appea lability

(COA) a nd thus outside the scope of our r eview. See M urray v. United States , 145 F.3d 1249, 1250- 51 (11th Cir. 1998).

2 Case: 12-10281 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 2 of 8ap pe ll at e co urt m ay setasi de a tr ia l co urt’s fi nd in gs of f acton ly if th ey

are ‘cle arl y erro ne ou s.’”). The Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6 (“ AEDPA”) im po se s a o ne -y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns forfil in g a§ 2 25 5 m ot io n, wh ic h b eg in s to run fol lo win g t he lat es t o f fo urpo ss ib le ev en ts , in cl ud in g “ th e d at e o n wh ic h th e jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on be co m es fin al .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5( f)(1 ). A con vi ct io n or di na ril y be co m es fin al when th e Supr em e Co urt d en ie s cer ti or ar i orwhenth e 90 -d ay pe rio d fo r fi li ng a pe ti ti on for cer ti or ar iex pi res . Clo se v. Uni te d Sta tes , 33 6 F .3d12 83 , 12 84 -8 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . If a pe ti ti on forreh eari ng is ti m el y fil ed , th e 9 0- da y

fil in g p eri odrun s fr om

th e d at e o f th e d en ia l o f reh eari ng . Sup . Ct . R. 13 .3. Nev erthe le ss , th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns m ay be equi tabl y

to ll edwher e a m ov an t s ho ws “ (1 ) th athe ha s b een pu rs ui ng hi s ri gh ts di li ge nt ly, an d (2 ) th at so m e ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ce s to odinhi s way andpre ve nt edti m el y fil in g.” Hol la nd v. Flo ri da , 56 0 U.S. _

_, _ _, 1 30 S. Ct. 2 54 9, 2 56 2 (2 01 0) (qu ot at io n om it te d) . As to th e fi rs t p ro ng , th e m ov an t n eedon ly dem on st rat e “ reas on ab le di li ge nc e” ra th er tha n “ m ax im um feas ib le di li ge nc e.” Id. at _ _, 1 30 S. Ct. at25 65 (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . As to th e se co ndpro ng , an e xtrao rd in ary ci rcu m st an ce i s on e th atis bo th be y on d t he m ov an t’s co nt ro l an d u na vo id ab le ev enwith d il ig en ce. 3 Case: 12-10281 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 3 of 8Dre w v. Dep ’t o f Co rr s. , 29 7 F .3d12 78 , 12 86 (11 thCir . 20 02 ); se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Mon ta no , 39 8 F .3d12 76 , 12 80 n.5 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th ata m ov an t’s li mit edab il it y

to co m m un ic at e in Eng li sh was n otex tra or di na ry for pu rp os es of equi tabl e to ll in g) . Equ it ab le to ll in g “ is anex tra or di na ry rem edy whi ch is typic al ly ap pl ie d s pa rin gl y ,” an d the m ov an t b ears th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atitis warra nt ed . Dre w , 29 7 F .3dat 1 28 6 (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Whe n am ov an t h as “ no t carr ie d h is bu rd enof s ho win g t ha t h e p ur su edhi s ri gh ts di li ge nt ly,” the co urt

“ ne edno t d eci de whet he r [h e] has est ab li sh edth atanex tra or di na ry cir cu m st an ce st oo d i n t he way ” o f ti m el y fil in g. Hut ch in so n v . Flo ri da , 67 7 F .3d10 97 , 11 03 (1 1t h C ir.) , cer t. d

en ie d , 13 3 S . Ct. 4 35 (20 12 ). A cou rt’s e qu it ab le po wers m us t b e ex erci se d o n acas e-b y -cas e b as is . Hol la nd , 56 0 U.S. at__ , 13 0 S . Ct. at25 63 . In Hol la nd , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d th atatt orne y

m is co nduc t tha t g oe s b ey on d “ gard enva rie ty” neg li ge nc e an d i s su ffi ci en tl y

eg reg io us m ay

co ns ti tu te anex tra or di nary cir cu m st an ce. Id. at _

_, 1 30 S. Ct . at 2 56 3- 64 . Desp it e Hol la nd ’s m an y pl eas , hi s at to rn ey

fai le d t o fi le a ti m el y fed eral habe as pe ti ti on , fai le d t o t im el y in fo rm hi m th atth e st at e supr em e co urt h adde ci de d h is cas e, an d fa il edto co m m un ic at e wit h h im

ov er a p eri odof y ears . Id. at__ , 13 0 S . Ct at25 64 . The Co urt n ot edth at“ Hol la ndno t o nl y wrot e hi s at to rn ey

nu m ero us let te rs see ki ng cru ci al in fo rm at io n a ndpro vi di ng di rect io n,” 4 Case: 12-10281 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 4 of 8bu t al so “ rep eat ed ly con ta ct edth e st at e co urts , th ei r cl erk s, an d t he Flo rid a St at e

Bar As so ci at io n i n a n e ffo rt t o h av e [h is att orne y ] . . . rem ov edfro m hi s ca se .” Id. at__ , 13 0 S . Ct at25 65 . Hol la ndals o p ro m pt ly file d a pr o s e fed eral habe as pe ti ti on th e v ery da y

th athe di sc ov eredth e st atut e o f li m it at io ns ha d e xp ire d due to co un se l’s fa il in gs . Id.

“ A len gt hy del ay

be twee n t he is su an ce o f a n eces sa ry ord er an d an i nm at e’s rece ip t o f itm ig htpro vi de a ba si s fo r equi tabl e to ll in g i f th e p et it io ne r ha s di li ge nt ly atte m

pt edto asc ert ai n t he st atus of t ha t o rd er an d i f th e d el ay pre ve nt ed ” ti m el y fil in g o f a § 22 55 m ot io n. Dre w , 29 7 F .3dat 1 28 8. Ho wev er, “ no t i n e ve ry cas e wil l a p ris on er b e en ti tl edto equi tabl e to ll in g u nt il he rece iv es no ti ce.” Kn ight v. Sc ho fi eld , 29 2 F .3d70 9, 7 11 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Altho ug h n o b rig ht -li ne ru le requi res pri so ne rs to di rect ly con ta ctth e co urt s y st em , we hav e h el d tha t

“ effo rts to lea rnth e d is po si ti on of p re-f ed eral habe as st ep s ar e cru ci al to de te rm in in g wh ethe r equi tabl e to ll in g i s ap pr op ria te .” Sa n Ma rt in v. McNei l, 63 3 F.3 d 1 25 7, 1 26 9 (1 1t h C ir.) , cer t. d en ie d , 13 2 S . Ct. 1 58 (20 11 ). App lying th es e p rin ci pl es , we hel d t ha t due di li ge nc e was no t es tabl is he d i n Dre wor Sa n Ma rt in . In Dre w , th e p et it io ne r co ul d n otsubs ta nt ia te hi s cl ai m th at he rep eat ed ly trie d t o l earn th e st atus of h is cas e whe n h e co ul d o nl y pro ve th athe se nton e le tt er t o t he cle rk ’s off ic e an d p ro vi de d n o a dd it io na l i nf orm at io n abo ut 5 Case: 12-10281 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 5 of 8th e le tt ers . 29 7 F .3dat 1 28 8- 89 . Furt he rm or e, th e p et it io ne r m ad e n o o th er

at te m pt s t o c on ta ctth e co urt, s uc h a s ca ll in g o r “ se ek in g h el p fr om pe op le with t he ab il it y to go to th e co urt p ers on al ly.” Id. at12 89 . This Co urt, i n h ol di ng th atth e pe ti ti on er was no t en ti tl edto th e “ rare an d e xt rao rd in ary rem edy of e qu it ab le to ll in g,” als o s tre ss edth atwe m us t ac co rd“ne ces sa ry

de fere nc e to th e d is tri ct co urt’s fi nd in gs of f

act ” an d n oten ga ge ina de no vo rev ie w of t he se fin di ng s. Id. at12 89 -9 0. Th e p et it io ne r in Sa n Ma rt in , am on g o th er thi ng s, m ad e n o a tt em ptto co nt actth e co urt t o l earn ab ou t the res ol ut io n o f hi s ca se or a nyon e el se to co m pl ai n abo uthi s u nr es po ns iv e at to rn ey , if tha t h adactua ll y be enth e cas e. 63 3 F.3 d a t 1 27 0. On the ot he r ha nd , equ it ab le to ll in g was ap pr op ria te wher e a p ris on er was as su redby the co urt tha t i t wo ul d n ot ify him as so on as ade ci si on was m ad e, an d he co nt act edth e co urt t o i nqui re ab ou t h is cas e aft er n ot ic e was in adve rte nt ly sen t to th e wro ng pe rs on . Kn ight , 29 2 F .3dat 7 10 -1 1. Ad di ti on al ly, th e p et it io ne r in Aro n was e nt it le d t o a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng when , inad di ti on to writ in g m an y le tt ers an d p la ci ng nu m ero us cal ls to hi s at to rn ey , he a tt em pt edto fil e two pr o s e m ot io ns with t he di st ric t co urt, as well as alet te r in qu iri ng ab ou t the st atus of a m ot io n, al l b efo re the st atut e o f li m it at io ns ha d ru n. Aro n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 29 1 F.3 d 7 08 , 71 3- 14 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). 6

Case: 12-10281 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 6 of 8The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g t ha t Lo pe z was no t reas on ab ly dil ig en t i n h is effo rts to asc ert ai n the di sp os it io n o f hi s d ire ctap pe al . Lik e th e p et it io ne r in Dre w , Lop ez’s al le ge d a tt em pt s t o c on ta cthi s at to rn ey by ph on e an d m ai l ar e la rg el y un supp orte d b y

th e rec or d e vi de nc e. In st ead , th e earl ie stsp eci fic da te th athe wrot e to hi s at to rn ey was Jul y 8, 2 01 0, n earl y

ele ve n m on th s i nt o t he on e-year st atut e o f li m it at io ns . Add it io na ll y , si m il ar t o t he pe ti ti on er i n Sa n Ma rt in , Lop ez m ad e n o a tt em ptto co nt acteit he r th e d is tri ct co urt, n orth is Co urt, re ga rd in g t he st atus of h is ap pe al du rin g 2 00 9 a ndm os t o f 20 10 de sp it e h av in g p rev io us ly inqui redab ou t the st atus of h is ap pe al in20 07 an d ha vi ng pre vi ou sl y

fil eda pr o s e“ m ot io n fo r ap pe al ” th atsame y ear. Lo pe z al so fil eda Nov em

be r 20 10 “ m ot io n re qu es ti ng leg al do cu m en ts ” wit h t he di st ric t co urt. Thi s d em on st rat edco rres po nd en ce wi th th e d is tri ctco urt i nd ic at es th athe was aware tha t h e co ul d c on ta ctth e co urt s y st em , y ethe off ers no ex pl an at io n fo r hi s fa il ur e to do so du rin g t he rel ev an t t im e p eri od . Nor h as Lop ez al le ge d t ha t h e so ug hthe lp fro m

any on e el se or c on su lt edwith a nyon e reg ard in g h is att orne y ’s al le ge d n on -res po ns iv en es s. Se e Dre w , 29 7 F .3dat 1 28 9. Fi na ll y , Lop ez re cei ve d a co py of th e d eci si on on hi s d ire ctap pe al fro m hi s at to rn ey

on Aug us t 1 2, 2 01 0, si x d ay s p rio r to th e ex pi rat io n o f th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns on Aug us t 1 8, 2 01 0. Bu t Lo pe z o ffer s n o e xp la na ti on forwait in g a lm os t o ne y ear b efo re fi li ng hi s § 7 Case: 12-10281 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 7 of 822 55 m ot io n o n Au gu st4, 2 01 1.

Bec au se Lop ez h as no t d em on st rat edth atth e d is tri ctco urt was cle arl y erro ne ou s i n fi nd in g tha t Lo pe z fai le d t o e xe rci se reas on ab le di li ge nc e, we ne ed no t d eci de whet he r Lop ez h as est ab li sh edth athi s at to rn ey ’s in act io n was su ffi ci en tl y

eg reg io us to qu al ify as an ex tra or di na ry cir cu m st an ce. Se e Hut ch in so n, 67 7 F .3dat 1 10 3. Lo pe z h as no t m ethi s b ur de n o f sh owi ng th at equi tabl e to ll in g was warran te d. Upo n re vi ew of

th e en ti re re co rdon ap pe al , andaft er co ns id erat io n o f th e pa rti es ’ ap pe ll at e b rie fs , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

8 Case: 12-10281 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 8 of 8