a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 but stopped litigating the case because Mack-ey’s parents did not pay his legal fees. Id. at 1248-50. Because the attorney neither filed an appeal of the district court’s denial of the habeas petition nor alerted Mackey to the fact that judgment had been entered against him, Mackey forfeited his opportunity to appeal. Id. A new attorney sought to revive this lost chance by filing a motion under Rule 60(b) to re-enter the denial of the habeas petition and restart the time allowed for an appeal under Rule 4(a). Id. The district court held that Stein deprived it of discretion to consider a Rule 60(b) motion filed only to remedy an untimely appeal. Id. at 1250. We reversed. Id. at 1164, 1169-71 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>), that “when a federal habeas petitioner has
holding in review of a downward departure that an extraordinary reduction must be supported by extraordinary circumstances holding that an attorneys repeated lies and deceptions about the status of the prisoners case were extraordinary circumstances holding that a petitioners mental incompetency can constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling if it interferes with his ability to communicate with his attorney holding that the defendant failed to place before the trial court evidence of such weight as to establish that his prior sworn statement of satisfaction with his attorney should be disregarded holding that a defendant had shown extraordinary circumstances where his attorney disregarded his instructions and purposefully deceived him about the progress of the proceedings