[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-14257 ____________________

MICHAEL LAWRENCE CASSIDY, Petitioner-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-00131-WS-HTC ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-14257 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 10/28/2024 Page: 2 of 23

2 Opinion of the Court 21-14257

____________________

No. 23-13367 ____________________

THERESA BATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, versus FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-14354-BB ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LUCK and HULL, Circuit Judges. WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge: These consolidated appeals require us to decide whether two state prisoners’ federal petitions for writs of habeas corpus are timely. Theresa Batson and Michael Cassidy contend that their pe- titions are timely because the state courts amended their USCA11 Case: 21-14257 Document: 80-1 Date Filed: 10/28/2024 Page: 3 of 23

21-14257 Opinion of the Court 3

judgments and sentences after the vacatur of one count of their original judgments. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The district courts dis- missed their petitions as untimely after deciding that the state courts issued those amended judgments and sentences nunc pro tunc to the date of their original judgments. We held, in Osbourne v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, that we must defer to a state court’s designation of an amended sentence as nunc pro tunc. 968 F.3d 1261, 1266–67, 1266 n.4 (11th Cir. 2020). Because the state court in Batson’s case designated her amended sentences as nunc pro tunc, her federal petition is untimely. And because the state court in Cassidy’s case did not designate his amended judgment and sentence as nunc pro tunc, his federal petition is timely. We af- firm the dismissal of Batson’s petition, but we vacate Cassidy’s dis- missal and remand for further proceedings. I. BACKGROUND These consolidated appeals involve two state prisoners con- victed of unrelated crimes: Theresa Batson and Michael Cassidy. Despite their separate factual and procedural histories, these ap- peals present overlapping questions about nunc pro tunc orders and when amended judgments and sentences restart the statute of lim- itations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. As background, we explain the facts that gave rise to Batson’s ap- peal before doing the same for Cassidy’s appeal. A. Batson’s Appeal