Under GONZALES V. THALER, when does a petitioner's conviction become final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. Under GONZALES V. THALER, 565 U.S-134(2012), does a Petitioner's conviction become "Final" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), 30 days after the State's highest Court "Dismisses" his Petition for Discretionary Review as untimely, or, in a subsequent order "Refusing" such review(App.H at 1-3; App-B; and App-.D, Ex-A at 2-3)? In determining when a Petitioner‘s conviction becomes "Final" under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), are Federal Judges authorized to employ the "Look , Through" presumption as announced in Ylst V. NUNNEMAKER, 501 U.S. 797(1991), which requires Federal Judges to determine whether or not the State Courts : : adyucated the merits under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1)(2)? Did the District Court Err in presuming that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals subsequent order "Dismissed" Esparza's PDR(App-H at 1-3; App.B; App-D,Ex.A at 2-3)? II. How should the "Equitable Tolling" as announced under HOLLAND V. FLORIDA, 560 U.S. 631(2010), be applied to a Court-Appointed Appellate Counsel "Gross Neyligence" during a critical point of a proceeding? Did the Lower Court apply a "Rigid Standard" (App-B at 2; App.H at 5-9)? . 2