only for clear error. Id. “This standard requires us to affirm a district court’s findings of fact unless the record lacks substantial evidence to support that determination.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Charest filed the instant habeas petition on May 8, 2003, seeking to challenge the validity of his state court convictions and two consecutive life-term sentences, which became final on February 6,1996, for first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, and causing the delinquency or dependency of a child or causing a child to be in need of supervision. Absent tolling, the limitations period would have expired one year from the April 24, 1996 effective date of the AEDPA, or on April 24, 1997. See Wilcox v. Fla. Dept. of Corr., 158 F.3d 1209, 1211 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The district court dismissed the petition as
holding aedpa applicable to petition filed on or after aedpas effective date holding that prisoners had one year from the effective date of aedpa april 24 1996 to file their habeas petitions before they could be considered timebarred by the operation of  2244d1 holding that petitioners whose convictions became final before the enactment of aedpa had a oneyear grace period after aedpas effective date to file their federal habeas petitions holding that  2254 petitions of prisoners whose convictions became final before the passage of the aedpa are timely if filed within one year from the aedpas effective date holding that habeas petitions challenging judgments of conviction that became final before the effective date of the aedpa are not time barred if filed within one year from aedpas effective date april 241996