Whether a federal habeas petition filed by a state prisoner is timely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's statute of limitations

No question identified. : UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 24-2887 MICHAEL BROOMER, Appellant Vv. WARDEN JAMES T VAUGHN CORRECTIONAL CENTER; ATTORNEY GENERAL DELAWARE On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civil No. 1: 23-cv-00570) SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING Present: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, RESTREPO, BIBAS, PORTER, MATEY, PHIPPS, FREEMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, CHUNG, and NYGAARD,” Circuit Judges The petition for rehearing filed by Appellant Michael Broomer in the abovecaptioned case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the judges of the circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court en banc is denied. By the Court, s/ Arianna J. Freeman Circuit Judge * Judge Nygaard’s vote is limited to panel rehearing. Dated: May 22, 2025 JK/cc: Michael Broomer All Counsel of Record *AMENDED DLD-078 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT C.A. No. 24-2887 MICHAEL BROOMER, Appellant VS. WARDEN JAMES T. VAUGHN CORRECTIONAL CENTER; ET AL. (D. Del. Civ. No. 1:23-cv-00570) Present: RESTREPO, FREEMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges Submitted are: (1) — Appellant’s motion for a certificate of appealability; (2) Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel; and (3) Appellant’s “Additional Memorandum”, filed February 21, 2025 in the above-captioned case. Respectfully, Clerk ORDER Appellant’s motion for a certificate of appealability is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Jurists of reason would agree, without debate, that Appellant’s habeas petition was properly dismissed by the District Court as untimely, for essentially the reasons set forth in the District Court’s opinion. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); cf. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel is also denied. By the Court, s/Arianna J. Freeman Circuit Judge Dated: March 20, 2025 JK/cc: Michael Broomer All Counsel of Record cS *weanet tani he 2) Ny ¢%e A True Copy:? 7135.10 Qt Ab Duque E Patricia S. Dodszuweit, Clerk Certified Order Issued in Lieu of Mandate