Nichols

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Avin Nichols appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review the district court’s dismissal de novo, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Nichols contends that the district court erred by dismissing his habeas petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1). 3 Because Nichols’ conviction became final in 1990, before the effective date of the AEDPA, he had until April 23, 1997 to file his federal habeas petition. 4 See Calderon v. United States District Ct. (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. *802 1997), overruled on other grounds by Calderon v. United States District Ct. (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc).

Giving Nichols the benefit of all possible tolling periods under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2), he was required to file his federal habeas petition by December 13, 1997. Therefore, we conclude that his federal petition, which was signed on May 14, 1998 and filed on May 29, 1998, was untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d); Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S.…