on procedural grounds, Petitioner must demonstrate, inter alia, that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. Petitioner does not contest that his ha-beas petition was filed outside the one-year limitations period. Thus, the threshold issue is whether the district court erred in denying Petition nt in order to cover up his misdeeds, see Fleming, 481 F.3d at 1255-57 (<HOLDING>). But a miscalculation or misinterpretation of
holding that petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling where former counsel actively deceived petitioner over several months into believing he was diligently pursuing petitioners legal remedies when in fact he was not holding that the petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he filed his habeas petition more than two months late holding that a petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he waited six months to file a federal petition after any state misconduct ended holding that a petitioner must act with due diligence when pursuing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to benefit from equitable tolling of deadlines holding petitioner cannot claim he was denied right to assistance of counsel when he knowingly and voluntarily decided to represent himself