motion must have been filed within one year from “the date on which the judgment of conviction [became] final,” or “the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States [was] removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Baylor argues he is entitled to equitable tolling, and therefore the one-year limitations period should run from August 2, 2000, the date on which his counsel received actual notice of the amended judgment. Although the Government concedes § 2255 is subject to equitable tolling, it argues, and we agree, Baylor’s delay is not excusable under that doctrine. See United States v. Cicero, 214 F.3d 199, 203 (D.C.Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Washington v. WMATA 160 F.3d 750, 753
holding that mental incapacity is an extraordinary circumstance that may warrant equitable tolling holding that equitable tolling under  2255 would be allowed if at all only for extraordinary circumstances holding in review of a downward departure that an extraordinary reduction must be supported by extraordinary circumstances holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling holding that equitable tolling is available for petitions filed pursuant to 28 usc  2255