and Judge Alford's orders. While such facts may excuse a short delay, they hardly support a year delay. 10 . We have not expressly held that equitable tolling applies in cases involving § 2241 petitions. However, we have applied it in a number of such cases. See Burger v. Scott, 317 F.3d 1133, 1141-44 (10th Cir.2003); see also, e.g., Steffey v. Sirmons, 273 Fed.Appx. 748, 750-51 (10th Cir.2008) (unpublished); Marques v. Burnett, 62 Fed.Appx. 247, 249 (10th Cir.2003) (unpublished). We have also held that § 2241 petitions are subject to the one-year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), see Dulworth, 442 F.3d at 1268, which the Supreme Court recently held is subject to equitable tolling. See Holland v. Florida,-U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2560, 2562, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010)
holding that the oneyear statute of limitations set out in 28 usc  2244d applies to  2241 petitions holding new time period of 28 usc  2244d inapplicable to pending habeas petition where period ended before amendments effective date holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling holding that  2244d is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases holding statute of limitations period defined in 28 usc  2244d is subject to equitable tolling