matters, and adversary proceedings have been fully resolved. 6 . The Trustee does not appear to challenge on appeal the Bankruptcy Court's and the District Court’s conclusion that the Bankruptcy Court would have entered an order closing the case in December 1996, assuming that it could have done so. 7 . See also Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) (“One who fails to act diligently cannot invoke equitable principles to excuse that lack of diligence."); In re Jarvis, 53 F.3d 416, 421 (1st Cir.1995) (“if the category of extraordinary circumstances were expanded to include mere oversight, the modifying adjective 'extraordinary' would be completely emptied of its meaning”); In re Ark. Co., Inc., 798 F.2d 645, 650 (3d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). STRAUB, Circuit Judge, concurring. I agree
holding in review of a downward departure that an extraordinary reduction must be supported by extraordinary circumstances holding reasonable an agency determination that a request for an investigative file did not include the employment file holding in a habeas case that tolling is available when an inmate diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control holding that extraordinary circumstances did not include the mere neglect of the professional who was in a position to file a timely application holding equitable tolling available if an inmate diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control