When this Court issued Holland v. Florida, 130 S.ct. 2549 (2010), decision, was the intent to apply it to Capital cases only for purposes of Attorney Abandonment issues and equitable tolling of the (AEDPA's) one-year period to file a petition for Habeas Corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.Section 2254?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : 1). When this Court issued Holland v. Florida, 130 S.ct. 2549 (2010), decision, ) “was is this Honorable Court intent to apply Hollando to "Capital cases only" for : purposes of Attorney Abandonment issues and equitable tolling of the (AEDPA's) one~ 1-year period to file a petition for Habeas Corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.Section 2254? If not, did the District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals’ error in ruling and abuse it's discretion ion denying Petitioner's Rule 60(b)(6) motion by ‘holding "It is not clear" that the Supreme Court in Holland intended to overrule. the Third Circuit holdings that in "Non-Capi tal case", Attorney error, : miscalculation, or other mistakes have not been found to rise to the . 7 . "extraordinary circumstances" required for equitable tolling. : . 2). This Honorable-Court should resolve the Conflict in Circuit U.S. Court of 7 Appeals and U.S. District Court decision(s) relating to attorney abandonment and equitable tolling of the (AEDPA's) one-1-year period to file a 28 U..S.C. Section’ 9954 Habeas Petition? De .