FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 29, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 10 98 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 0- cv -6 07 72 -DLG JAM ES POVEROMO, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 29 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:The di stric t co urt d en ie d J am es Po ve ro m o’s p et it io n, b ro ug htun de r 28

U.S.C. § 2 25 4, fo r habe as co rp us rel ie f fro m hi s Fl or id a co nv ic ti on s fo r ag gr av at edba tt ery, bu rg la ry of adwel li ng whi le arm edwith afir earm , and carry in g aco nc eal edfir earm . W e g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y as t o o ne is su e: whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt erred , inli gh t o f Hol la nd v. Flo ri da , 56 0 U.S. _

__ , 13 0 S .Ct. 2 54 9, 1 77 L.Ed.2d13 0 (2 01 0) , infin di ng th atPo ve ro m o was no t en ti tl edto equi tabl e to ll in g (t o e xc us e th e unt im el y fil in g o f is pe ti ti on ) be cau se at to rn ey ne gl ig en ce cann otserve as aba si s fo r equi tabl e to ll in g. Und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 (d ), a p et it io ne r ha s o ne y ear i n wh ic h t o fi le a § 22 54 habe as pe ti ti on . The y ear b eg in s t o ru n o n the lat es t o f fo urtri gg eri ng ev en ts . 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (1 ). The t rig ge rin g e ve ntrel ev an t t o t hi s ca se is “ th e da te on whi ch th e jud gm en t b ecame fin al by the co nc lu si on of d ire ctrev ie w or the ex pi rat io n o f th e ti m e fo r se ek in g s uc h re vi ew.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (1 )(A). Aft er en try of a fi na l ju dg m en t o f co nv ic ti on by a sta te co urt, the de fen da ntha s 9 0 d ay s to pe ti ti on th e U.S. Supr em e Co urt fo r a wri t o f certi or ari . Sup .Ct.R . 13 .1. If n o su ch pe ti ti on is fil ed , th e jud gm en t i s co ns id eredfin al forpu rp os es of § 22 44 (d )(1 )(A) atth e ex pi rat io n o f th at90 -d ay win do w. Ch av er

s v. Sec’y, Fla . Dep t. o f Co rr ., 46 8 F .3d12 73 , 12 74 -7 5 (1 1 Cir . 20 06 ). The o ne -y ear l im it at io n th pe rio d fo r fi li ng a § 2 25 4 p et it io n i s t ol le d dur in g t im es inwhi cha pr op erl y fil ed 2ap pl ic at io n fo r st at e p os t-c on vi ct io n re li ef i s p en di ng . 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( d) (2 ).

Howev er, a s ta te ap pl ic at io n fi le d a fte r th e § 22 44 (d ) li m it at io ns pe rio d h as al read y run do es no t t ol l, as th ere i s n o l im it at io ns pe rio d re m ai ni ng to be to ll ed . W eb st er v. Moo re, 19 9 F .3d12 56 , 12 59 (11 Cir . 20 00 ). th Equ it ab le to ll in g app li es on ly whe re the li ti ga ntsat is fie s h is bu rd enof es tabl is hi ng “ (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 atso 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.” Id., 56 0 U.S. at__

_, 1 30 St.C t. at25 62 (qu ot at io n o m it te d) ; se e Arthu r v. Al le n, 45 2 F.3 d 1 23 4, 1 25 2 (1 1 Cir . 20 06 ) (h ol di ng th ata pe ti ti on er m us t s ho w bo th th ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces an d d il ig en ce i n o rd er t o p rev ai l). Th e d il ig en ce pr on g re qu ire s “ reas on ab le di li ge nc e,” rat he r th an“ m ax im um feas ib le di li ge nc e.” Hol la nd at _

__ , 13 0 S .Ct. at25 65 (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Und er the form er l aw of

th is cir cu it , att orne y

ne gl ig en ce co ul d n ev er s erv e as a ba si s fo r equi tabl e to ll in g. Hol la nd v. Flo ri da , 53 9 F .3d13 34 , 13 39 (11 Cir . th 20 08 ). The Supr em e Co urt re jecte d t hi s v ie w in Hol la nd , cal li ng it“ ov erl y

rig id ” th atanatt orne y ’s gro ss ne gl ig en ce ca nn otwarran t t ol li ng ab se ntba d fa it h, di sh on es ty, di vi de d l oyalty , or m en ta l i m pa irment. Hol la nd

, 56 0 U.S. at__

_, 1 30 S.Ct . at 2 56 3- 65 . The Co urt h el d t ha t wh il e a “ ga rd enva rie ty clai m of e xc us ab le ne gl ect ,” su ch as a n a tt orne y ’s “ si m pl e m is cal cu la ti on ” th atres ul ts ina m is se d 3fil in g d ead li ne , do es no t warran t equi tabl e to ll in g, “ se rio us in st an ces of a tt orne y

m is co nduc t” co ul d. Id

. at _

__ , 13 0 S .Ct. at25 64 (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . A rev ie w of t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on rev eal s t ha t i t erredinad op ti ng th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on , whi ch st at edth at“ th e Ele ve nt h Ci rcu itha s re pe at ed ly hel d tha t at to rn ey ne gl ig en ce i s n ota ba si s fo r equi tabl e to ll in g.” Hol la nd ex pr es sl y reject edth atrul e, an d i t was im pr op er fo r th e d is tri ct co urt t o re ly upo n t hi s co urt’s p re- Hol la nd pr eced en t. The pro pe r an al y si s i s t o de te rm in e whe th er the fact s s ho w gar de n v ari ety att orne y ne gl ig en ce o r se rio us at to rn ey m is co nduc t. Fu rth erm or e, th e m ag is tra te jud ge no te d t ha t Po ve ro m o h ad no t al le ge d t ha t Po ve ro m o’s at to rn ey li edto or m is le d h im , rel y in g a ga in on ou r ol d ru le s. Th e m ag is tra te jud ge als o fa il edto co ns id er Po ve ro m o’s fa th er’s affi da vi t, wh ic h m en ti on edrep eat edreque st s t o t he att orne y th athe fil e a Fl a. R. Cri m . P. § 3 .85 0 m ot io n b efo re the fed eral li m it at io ns pe rio d ra n, the so rt o f fac t th atth e Supr em e Co urt i n Hol la nd fou ndrel ev an t t o b ot h p ro ng s o f th e equi tabl e to ll in g a na lysis . Accor di ng ly, we VACATE th e d is m ss al of P ov ero m o’s p et it io n an d R EMAND th e cas e to th e d is tri ctco urt wi th th e in st ru ct io n t ha t i t co nduc t the pr op er equi tabl e to ll in g a na lysis . SO ORDERED.

4