their clerks, and the state bar association in an effort to have his attorney removed from the case; and “promptly” filing his own habeas petition pro se after discovering that his AEDPA clock had expired due to his attorney’s failings). Similarly, “the fact that Mr. Pace’s attorney was contemplating filing for a new trial in 2006 does not explain Mr. Pace’s complete failure to file any motions in his criminal case until March 19, 2008, nor his decision to delay the filing of his habeas application until September 29, 2011.” R. at 202 (Order of Dismissal, filed Dec. 8, 2011). In sum, Mr. Pace does not allege specific facts that would support a claim of due diligence after his attorney’s alleged untruthfulness and abandonment. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 928 (10th Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). The district court determined that Mr. Pace
holding that in order to warrant equitable tolling alien claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the case during the period the alien seeks to toll internal quotation marks omitted holding that to establish a violation of due process an alien must show that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her claims internal quotation marks omitted holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted holding that beneficiary of general support trust has a legal right to compel distribution of funds internal quotation marks omitted holding that the petitioner has a strong burden to show specific facts to support his claim of extraordinary circumstances and due diligence quoting brown v barrow 512 f3d 1304 1307 11th cir 2008 internal quotation marks omitted