a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 123 S.Ct. 1072, 1074, 155 L.Ed.2d 88 (2003) (“[A] judgment of conviction becomes final when the time expires for filing a petition for certiorari contesting the appellate court’s affirmation of the conviction.”); Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 80 (2d Cir.2001) (“Congress imposed a ‘1-year period of limitation’ on section 2255 motions, which runs, in this case, from ‘the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.’ ”). Baldayaque filed his pro se petition on November 28, 2000, more than 30 months late. However, the court believed that the facts of Baldayaque’s case suggested that the limitations period might be equitably tolled, rendering the petition timely. See Green, 260 F.3d at 82 (<HOLDING>). The court appointed counsel for Baldayaque to
holding that equitable tolling is available for petitions filed pursuant to 28 usc  2255 holding statute of limitations period defined in 28 usc  2244d is subject to equitable tolling holding that equitable tolling under  2255 would be allowed if at all only for extraordinary circumstances holding that it is unconstitutional for a us magistrate judge to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 usc  636c over a  2255 motion holding that oneyear limitations period set forth in  2255 is not a jurisdictional bar and is thus subject to equitable tolling