conduct prevents the petitioner from timely filing.” Lawrence v. Florida, 421 F.3d 1221, 1226 (11th Cir.2005). The petitioner bears the burden of showing that equitable tolling is warranted. Drew, 297 F.3d at 1286. Thus, Charest’s burden is to show extraordinary circumstances that were both beyond his control and unavoidable even with his own exercise of diligence. We have considered the instant issue on numerous occasions and consistently held that equitable tolling is not justified by mere attorney negligence, where the petitioner has not exercised his ovra due diligence. See Steed, 219 F.3d at 1300 (“An attorney’s miscalculation of the limitations period or mistake is not a basis for equitable tolling.”); see also Helton v. Sec. for the Dep’t of Corr., 259 F.3d 1310, (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269,
holding that equitable tolling applied when the attorney informed his client there was no such thing as a oneyear filing deadline and consistently lied to his client and the clients wife holding that the petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he filed his habeas petition more than two months late holding that a petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he waited six months to file a federal petition after any state misconduct ended holding equitable tolling was not warranted where counsel misadvised client as to the deadline to file a habeas petition holding that equitable tolling of the time to file a notice of appeal is not permitted