to prepare and file a petition of habeas corpus,” instead “abandonfed]” him, which prevented Mr. Pace from timely filing a habeas petition. Aplt. Mot. for COA at 7 (capitalization altered). Mr. Pace also avers that, in May 2006, his attorney “lie[d] to [his] parent[s] about filing for [a] new trial.” Id. (capitalization altered). However, Mr. Pace does not explain how this alleged abandonment, which caused his parents to be misled “for at le[a]st one year[ ],” id. (emphasis added), resulted in Mr. Pace waiting to file his habeas petition until September 29, 2011 (more than five years after the attorney had been retained to file a habeas petition and approximately two years after the attorney had returned part of the retainer). See Law v. Jones, 433 Fed.Appx. 651, 652 (10th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); ef. Holland, 130 S.Ct. at 2565 (holding that
holding that a petitioner may amend a habeas petition rather than filing a second or successive petition when the first petition has not yet reached a final decision holding that dismissing a habeas petition as timebarred under the aedpa does not violate the suspension clause because petitioner had years to file the petition and gave no explanation why he failed to file on time holding that the habeas petition did not qualify for equitable tolling because the petitioner discovered that his attorney had lied about filing a petition in early 2008 and yet the petitioner did not file one himself until nearly two years later holding that petitioner was dili gent for equitable tolling purposes where petitioner filed state petition two months after conviction was final and filed federal petition seven days after discovering state had denied petition on the merits holding that the petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he filed his habeas petition more than two months late