Larry Demond Williams v. USA, No. 13-15064 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-15064 Date Filed: 12/02/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-15064 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 2:11-cv-08048-IPJ-JHE; 2:08-cr-00048-IPJ-RRA-2 LARRY DEMOND WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________ (December 2, 2014) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 13-15064 Date Filed: 12/02/2014 Page: 2 of 3 Larry Demond Williams, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his untimely motion to vacate. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court ruled that Williams was not entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitation. We affirm. The district court did not err by dismissing Williams’s motion to vacate. A movant “is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented him from timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Williams argued that prison violence thwarted him from preparing his motion, but “lockdowns and periods in which a prisoner is separated from his legal papers are not ‘extraordinary circumstances’ in which equitable tolling is appropriate,” Dodd v. United States, 365 F.3d 1273, 1283 (11th Cir. 2004). And even if we were to assume that the purported failure of Williams’s trial counsel to respond to his requests for information about his appeal was an extraordinary circumstance, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Williams failed to pursue postconviction relief with diligence. Williams did not inquire about the status of his direct appeal for more than year after it was filed, and after he learned of that decision, he waited an additional two months before filing his motion to 2 Case: 13-15064 Date Filed: 12/02/2014 Page: 3 of 3 vacate. See San Martin v. McNeil, 633 F.3d 1257, 1270–71 (11th Cir. 2011). Williams’s motion was untimely. We AFFIRM the dismissal of Williams’s motion to vacate. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
