finding on whether a party was diligent in ascertaining the federal habeas filing deadline is a finding of fact and, thus, will be r me-barred, rejecting Charest’s argument that his attorney’s delayed filing of a state post-conviction motion warranted equitable tolling of the AEDPA’s one-year limitations period. This appeal followed. The AEDPA’s one-year limitations period can be equitably tolled where a petitioner “untimely files because of extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence.” Steed v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298, 1300 (11th Cir.2000) (quotation omitted). However, this remedy is extraordinary and is applied sparingly. Id. “Equitable tolling is limited to rare and exceptional circumstances, such as when the State’ 2 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Attorney negligence is especially inadequate
holding equitable tolling was not warranted where counsel misadvised client as to the deadline to file a habeas petition holding equitable tolling was not justified where attorney filed a habeas petition five days late because he sent it by ordinary mail holding that the petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he filed his habeas petition more than two months late holding that petitioner was dili gent for equitable tolling purposes where petitioner filed state petition two months after conviction was final and filed federal petition seven days after discovering state had denied petition on the merits holding the timeliness provision in the habeas corpus statute is subject to equitable tolling