[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-12535

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

ANTHONY NEWSOME, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Respondents-Appellees.

USCA11 Case: 21-12535 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 21-12535

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cv-01509-TPB-AAS

____________________

Before WILSON, GRANT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Anthony Newsome, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

reconsideration, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

52(b), 59(b) & (e), and 60(b), of the denial of his petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as untimely. On appeal, 

Newsome contends that the district court erroneously found that 

his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 tolling motion was 

filed on May 13, 2016, the date on the prison date stamp that he 

initialed, rather than May 12, 2016, the date he certified, via a 

signed perjury declaration, that he hand-delivered the motion to 

prison authorities. Having read the parties’ briefs and reviewed the 

record, we affirm the district court’s order denying Newsome’s 

motion for reconsideration.

I.

We review de novo a district court’s determination that a 

petition for habeas corpus relief is time-barred. Nix v. Sec’y, Dep’t 

of Corr., 393 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2004). We may affirm for 

USCA11 Case: 21-12535 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 2 of 7
21-12535 Opinion of the Court 3

any reason supported in the record. United States v. Chitwood, 

676 F.3d 971, 975 (11th Cir. 2012). A § 2254 petitioner has one year 

from the date on which the judgment against him became final to 

seek a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). That time 

period starts at the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of 

the time for seeking such review. Id. The time for seeking direct 

review of a criminal conviction does not expire until 90 days after 

entry of the judgment, which is the period for filing for certiorari 

with the United States Supreme Court. Nix, 393 F.3d at 1236-37; 

Close v. United States, 336 F.3d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 2003). The 

Supreme Court can solely review judgments of a state court of last 

resort if the state court of last resort has denied discretionary review. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 154, 132 S. Ct. 641, 656

(2012). The Florida Supreme Court lacks discretionary review jurisdiction over unelaborated per curiam decisions. Jackson v. State, 

926 So. 2d 1262, 1265 (Fla. 2006). 

The limitations period can be calculated according to the anniversary method, under which the limitations period expires on 

the anniversary of the date it began to run. Downs v. McNeil, 520 

F.3d 1311, 1318 (11th Cir. 2008). If the last day of the limitations

period is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the time period continues to run until the next day. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). The 

limitations period is tolled during state post-conviction proceedings. § 2244(d)(2). In Florida, a post-conviction appeal remains 

pending until the mandate on appeal is issued. Nyland v. Moore, 

216 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2000). We have counted the extra 

USCA11 Case: 21-12535 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 21-12535

day from a leap year in calculating tolling. Chavez v. Sec’y, Fla. 

Dep’t of Corr., 647 F.3d 1057, 1070 n.12 (11th Cir. 2011) (equitable 

tolling). 

Under the mailbox rule, a pro se prisoner’s habeas filing is 

deemed filed the date it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing or, absent an indication of the mailing date, the day the inmate 

signed it. Allen v. Culliver, 471 F.3d 1196, 1198 (11th Cir. 2006); 

Paez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 947 F.3d 649, 652 (11th Cir. 2020), 

cert. denied sub nom. Paez v. Inch, ___ U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 309

(2020). The Florida Supreme Court has adopted the mailbox rule 

for Rule 3.850 motions filed by pro se prisoners. Haag v. State, 591 

So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 1992). 

We review a district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider 

for an abuse of discretion. Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 

740 (11th Cir. 2010). A motion for reconsideration cannot be used 

to relitigate old matters or raise arguments or present evidence that 

could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment. Id. A § 2254 

petitioner who fails to raise issues in his appellate brief abandons 

those issues. See Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 952, 955 n.1 (11th 

Cir. 1992). We can consider an abandoned issue sua sponte if a 

forfeiture exception applies and extraordinary circumstances warrant review. See United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th 

Cir. 2022) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (U.S. May 17, 2022) (No. 

21-1468). 

II. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12535 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 4 of 7
21-12535 Opinion of the Court 5

A. Motion for Reconsideration

Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Newsome’s motion 

for reconsideration because Newsome failed to make the appropriate showing for revisitation of the dismissal order. As the district 

court found, the handwritten date on the certificate of service does 

not present newly discovered evidence nor does it demonstrate a 

manifest error of law or fact. See Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 

1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (noting these reasons for granting a motion 

for reconsideration). 

Moreover, Newsome did not raise this specific argument, 

regarding the correct date of filing for his state post-conviction motion, until he filed his motion for reconsideration. Initially, Newsome argued below that the district court erred in dismissing his 

habeas petition as untimely because he misunderstood the trigger 

date for filing timely federal habeas petitions. As our court has 

noted “[a] motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate 

old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have 

been raised prior to the entry of judgment. . .includ[ing] new arguments that were previously available, but not pressed.” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This is exactly 

what Newsome is attempting to do. Accordingly, we conclude 

that the district court properly denied Newsome’s motion for reconsideration. 

B. Timeliness of Federal Habeas Petition

USCA11 Case: 21-12535 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 21-12535

Newsome’s motion for state post-conviction relief contained a prison date stamp of May 13, 2016, accompanied by the 

initial of both a prison official and Newsome himself. Per the mailbox rule, the motion was deemed filed on that date and tolled the 

one-year period. The lapsed time restarted on June 9, 2017, one 

day after the appellate court’s mandate issued on appeal of Newsome’s state post-conviction motion. At that time, Newsome had 

ten days remaining, or until June 18, 2017, to file a federal petition. 

Because June 18, 2017, fell on a Sunday, he had until Monday, June 

19, 2017, to file his petition. Newsome provided his petition to 

prison officials for mailing on June 20, 2017, one day late.

A review of the record demonstrates that Newsome’s federal habeas petition would have been untimely even using the earlier date of May 12, 2016, which he asserts is the proper date he filed 

his state post-conviction motion to toll the one-year limitations period. His direct appeal was affirmed per curiam on February 20, 

2015, and he had 90 days to file a writ of certiorari in the United 

States Supreme Court. His convictions became final on that date. 

See Close, 336 F.3d at 1285. According to the anniversary method, 

absent any tolling, Newsome had one year from that date, or until 

May 21, 2016, to file a timely § 2254 petition. See Downs, 520 F.3d 

at 1318. Because that date fell on a Saturday, Newsome had until 

the following Monday, May 23, 2016, to file his petition. If he filed 

his 3.850 state post-conviction motion on May 12, 2016, 357 days of 

the one-year limitation period had lapsed. Moreover, 2016 was a 

leap year. Thus, after the state appellate court issued its mandate 

USCA11 Case: 21-12535 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 6 of 7
21-12535 Opinion of the Court 7

for its per curiam affirmance of the state trial court’s order denying 

his Rule 3.850 motion on June 8, 2017, Newsome had nine days, or 

until Saturday, June 17, 2016, to file his § 2254 petition. Because his 

limitations period expired on a Saturday, he had until the next 

Monday, June 19, 2017, to submit his federal habeas petition; however, he did not do so until June 20, 2017. Thus, his petition was 

untimely. 

The record demonstrates that the district court properly 

concluded that Newsome’s federal habeas petition was untimely 

and dismissed it. Thus, it did not abuse its discretion by denying 

Newsome’s motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, based on the 

aforementioned reasons, we affirm the district court’s order denying Newsome’s motion for reconsideration of the district court’s 

order denying his federal habeas petition because it was untimely 

filed. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 21-12535 Date Filed: 07/07/2022 Page: 7 of 7