Lani

MEMORANDUM **

David Lani appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and, applying de novo review, see McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir.1999), we reverse.

Because Lani’s conviction became final before the enactment of the current one-year limit for filing federal habeas claims imposed in April 24, 1996, Lani would normally have had until April 23, 1997 to file his petition. See Calderon v. District Court, 128 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir.1997), overruled on other grounds, 168 F.3d 530 (1998); 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d). However, this limitation period is tolled by a pending “properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2). Although Lani’s pending state court motions may have been untimely filed, the applicable Nevada statute permits exceptions for good cause. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 34.726(1) (permitting late filing where delay is not petitioner’s fault and dismissal would cause undue prejudice). Because Lani’s motions were not untimely on their face, the one-year limitation was tolled while they were pending. See Dictado v.…