is subject to more strict evidentiary and procedural limitations than the latter. See United States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393, 397-405 (8th Cir. 1992) (en banc), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 989, 113 S.Ct. 1592, 123 L.Ed.2d 157 (1993); see also United States v. Luciano, 414 F.3d 174, 178— 80 (1st Cir.2005). 12 . In spite of what he alleges, Whitepipe was not prohibited from presenting mitigating evidence relating to the "range and severity of his past criminal conduct, his age and the circumstances surrounding the crime for which he [was] being sentenced.” 13 . When Whitepipe filed his federal petition, he still had more than five months left before the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations period. That period, however, has since run. See Duncan, 533 U.S. at 181-82, 121 S.Ct. 2120 (<HOLDING>); see also Lawrence v. Florida, - U.S. -, 127
holding that the untimely petition in that case tolled the aedpa statute of limitations holding that the limitations period is not tolled while a federal habeas petition is pending holding that the plain meaning of  2244d2 is that the statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of any properly filed federal habeas corpus petition holding that the speedy trial provision is tolled when a defendants pretrial motion is pending holding that the limitations period is likewise not tolled during the pendency of a certiorari petition to the supreme court