agreement. 10 . In fact, Whitepipe’s ineffective assistance/parole eligibility assertion was raised, for the first time, in his objections to the Court’s initial Report and Recommendation. Contrary to Whitepipe’s suggestion, the assertion was not contained in or used as a basis for seeking to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing. 11 . Whitepipe's reliance on United States v. White Horse, 177 F.Supp.2d 973 (D.S.D. 2001), aff'd, 316 F.3d 769 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 844, 124 S.Ct. 116, 157 L.Ed.2d 80 (2003) is misplaced. There, testimony concerning the defendant's Abel Assessment evaluation was sought to be admitted "during the guilt phase of his case in chief,” 177 F.Supp.2d at 974, not at sentencing as in Whitepipe's case. The fo t. 1079, 1081- 85, 166 L.Ed.2d 924 (2007) (<HOLDING>). As a result, if Whitepipe’s mixed petition is
holding that aedpas oneyear limitations period is not tolled during the pendency of a petition for certiorari to the united states supreme court that seeks review of a state courts denial of postconviction relief holding that the oneyear statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of petition for certiorari to the united states supreme court seeking review of denial of state postconviction relief holding that the limitations period is likewise not tolled during the pendency of a certiorari petition to the supreme court 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