had exhausted his state-court remedies. Finally, because in its estimation Mr. Pace had not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the district court denied him a COA. II Mr. Pace requests a COA to appeal from the district court’s denial of his § 2254 petition. It is undisputed on appeal that Mr. Pace’s habeas petition was filed outside of the one-year limitations period for filing a petition for federal habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), enacted under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, but Mr. Pace avers that equitable tolling should apply to allow his petition to advance despite its untimeliness, see, e.g., Holland v. Florida, —U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2560,177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) (<HOLDING>). Absent our grant of a COA, we lack
holding that  2244d is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling holding statute of limitations period defined in 28 usc  2244d is subject to equitable tolling holding that the filing of a first federal habeas petition is not an application for other collateral review under the tolling provision of  2244d holding title vii subject to equitable tolling