USCA11 Case: 21-12996 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2023 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-12996
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
ONIEL PEDLEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Secretary Florida Department of
Corrections,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-12996 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2023 Page: 2 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 21-12996
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 9:21-cv-80616-KMM
____________________
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and GRANT, Cir-
cuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Oniel Pedley, a Florida prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal
of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely.
28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d). We affirm.
Pedley is serving a life sentence for three counts of at-
tempted first-degree murder with a firearm, one count of robbery
with a firearm, and one count of armed kidnapping. The trial court
entered an amended sentence on May 21, 2012, and Pedley did not
appeal. On April 15, 2014, Pedley moved for postconviction relief,
Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850, which was denied, and his appeal was dis-
missed on November 21, 2017.
On November 18, 2020, Pedley moved the state court to ac-
cept as timely filed an attached motion to correct an illegal sen-
tence, Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a), after he allegedly found the motion
in his legal storage box and inquired about its status. The motion
included a handwritten certificate of service that Pedley “hereby
certif[ied] that [he] handed a true and correct copy of the instant
motion to Pre-Trial Detention Center officials for mailing . . . on
this 13 day of February 2013.” On March 3, 2021, the state court
USCA11 Case: 21-12996 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2023 Page: 3 of 5
21-12996 Opinion of the Court 3
granted Pedley’s motion to accept “[b]ecause there is no time limit
on filing a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule
3.800(a)” and denied the motion to correct on the merits.
On March 22, 2021, Pedley petitioned for a writ of habeas
corpus.
28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pedley argued that his petition was timely
because he filed the motion to correct on February 13, 2013, which
tolled the limitations period until the state court denied the motion
on March 3, 2021.
The district court dismissed the petition as untimely. The
district court ruled that Pedley’s allegation that he filed a motion to
correct on February 13, 2013, was unsupported by the record be-
cause there were no docket entries in the state court before the
limitations period elapsed on June 20, 2013, and because nothing in
his motion to accept filed in 2020 supported his allegation that he
delivered the motion to correct to officials for mailing in 2013.
Pedley moved for reconsideration. Pedley asserted that he
hand-delivered his motion to correct to officials at the pretrial de-
tention center on February 13, 2013, by affixing postage and placing
the addressed envelope between cell bars for an officer to pick up,
which was the policy. He asserted that his only proof of timeliness
was the dated certificate of service, which was sufficient under Flor-
ida law. The district court ordered the state to respond and address
whether evidence existed to support Pedley’s argument that he
complied with the state “mailbox rule” in filing his motion to cor-
rect.
USCA11 Case: 21-12996 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2023 Page: 4 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 21-12996
The state responded that the detention center did not keep
logs of outgoing mail except occasionally when an inmate would
give mail to a counselor, and the policy was to destroy any infor-
mation about mail after four years. Pedley’s only commissary
charges in February 2013 were for a daily “sub-fee,” which was a
daily cost that included housing, food, and clothing. Pedley’s com-
missary charges did not include any amounts paid for postage. The
district court denied the motion for reconsideration.
The only issue on appeal is whether the district court erred
by dismissing Pedley’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as un-
timely, which we review de novo. Bates v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr.,
964 F.3d 1326, 1328 (11th Cir. 2020). We review factual findings for
clear error. Arthur v. Allen,
452 F.3d 1234, 1252 (11th Cir. 2009).
We will not “disturb a credibility determination unless it is so in-
consistent or improbable on its face that no reasonable factfinder
could accept it.” Riolo v. United States,
38 F.4th 956, 968 (11th Cir.
2022).
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act imposes
a one-year period of limitation for a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus filed by a state prisoner.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The limita-
tions period runs from, among other things, the date a state pris-
oner’s conviction becomes final, which is “at the conclusion of di-
rect review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.”
Id. § 2244(d)(1)(A); Nix v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr.,
393 F.3d 1235,
1236–37 (11th Cir. 2004). “The time during which a properly filed
application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with
USCA11 Case: 21-12996 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2023 Page: 5 of 5
21-12996 Opinion of the Court 5
respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be
counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.” 28
U.S.C § 2244(d)(2). A state postconviction motion filed after the ex-
piration of the federal limitations period does not revive it. Sibley
v. Culliver,
377 F.3d 1196, 1204 (11th Cir. 2004).
The district court did not err by dismissing Pedley’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely. The state court made no
ruling about whether Pedley’s motion to correct should be treated
as having been filed in 2013, but instead reviewed it on the merits
because there was no deadline for filing a motion to correct an ille-
gal sentence, Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a). In the absence of a finding
of timeliness by the state court, the district court committed no
clear error in determining that Pedley’s self-serving allegation—
that he had filed a motion to correct in 2013, days before the limi-
tations period expired, and “found” it more than seven years
later—lacked any credible support in the record and that Pedley
failed to establish that he properly filed a state postconviction mo-
tion before the limitations period expired on June 20, 2013. See
28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); Nix,
393 F.3d at 1236–37. Because Pedley failed
to file his petition for a writ of habeas corpus within the one-year
federal limitations period, the district court did not err by dismiss-
ing the petition as untimely.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Pedley’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus.
