United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-1600 SAMUEL MORELAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CHERYL EPLETT, Warden Respondent-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 2:16-cv-00379 — Pamela Pepper, Chief Judge. ____________________

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 — DECIDED NOVEMBER 15, 2021 ____________________

Before BRENNAN, SCUDDER, and St. Eve, Circuit Judges. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Samuel Moreland argues his fed- eral habeas corpus petition was erroneously dismissed when the district court concluded that the petition was time barred and circumstances did not warrant equitable tolling. But Mo- reland’s arguments either fall short of the relevant legal and equitable standards or fall outside the scope of the certificate of appealability. So, we affirm the district court’s denial of ha- beas relief. 2 No. 20-1600

I Moreland was convicted in Wisconsin state court of first- degree reckless homicide by delivery of a controlled sub- stance. He received a sentence of 10 years’ initial confinement followed by 10 years’ extended supervision. Moreland unsuc- cessfully appealed his case, State v. Moreland, 839 N.W.2d 616 (Wis. 2013), and on August 11, 2013, his direct review ended when the opportunity to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court expired. Under the Antiter- rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), he had one year from that date to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Moreland moved for collateral postconviction relief in Wisconsin state court on July 30, 2014, 353 days after direct review of his conviction concluded. This process ended on March 7, 2016, when the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied Moreland’s petition for review. State v. Moreland, 885 N.W.2d 377 (Wis. 2016). For purposes of his later federal habeas peti- tion, all 586 days of the state postconviction process were tolled. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (“The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.”). Next, Moreland filed a habeas petition in the Eastern District of Wisconsin on March 28, 2016, 21 days after the conclusion of his state postconviction review. At this point, a total of 374 untolled days had elapsed since the end of Moreland’s direct review. Moreland’s federal habeas petition raised six constitutional claims related to due process, the ineffective assistance of counsel, the right to confrontation, No. 20-1600 3 and the right to a fair and impartial jury. The State of Wisconsin moved to dismiss, arguing the petition was untimely. Moreland responded that the time for filing his petition should be equitably tolled because he suffered from schizophrenia, and on several occasions he was unable to research his case due to lack of access to the prison library. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the petition was filed nine days after the one- year statute of limitations elapsed. Nevertheless, the court granted a certificate of appealability “on the issue of equitable tolling”: While this court does not believe that the peti- tioner has demonstrated extraordinary circum- stances or reasonable diligence to warrant equi- table tolling, the court supposes that his allega- tions about his sch