of his case, but simply assumed “inexplicably” that his attorney’s failure to respond to his inquiries meant that the attorney “was working on his case.” Id. at 817. The court contrasted that conduct with another prisoner’s attempts to contact the court to determine if his attorney had filed his § 2255 Motion, which the court described as “an action that certainly would fall under ‘reasonable diligence’ in th[at] case.” Id. (citing Anjulo-Lopez, 541 F.3d at 819). The court noted that, even after learning of his deadline, the prisoner in Muhammad did not file his § 2255 Motion “immediately” and that the time for filing expired in the interim between his learning of the deadline and his submission of the motion. Id.; see also Deroo v. United States, 709 F.3d 1242, 1246 (8th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); AnjuloLopez, 541 F.3d at 818-19 (finding that
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 that the defendant failed to demonstrate legitimate expectation of privacy where he could not show that he had the owners permission to use the car or demonstrate prior use or control of the car holding that in order to warrant equitable tolling alien claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the case during the period the alien seeks to toll internal quotation marks omitted holding that a grant of equitable relief requires diligence by the claimant holding that a prisoner had failed to demonstrate diligence for purposes of equitable tolling for the same reason that he had failed to show diligence to invoke the statute of limitations under  2255f4 where he had waited several years before pursuing expungement of his disciplinary actions