Seals

MEMORANDUM **

Jacob Otis Seals, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s *448 dismissal of Ms 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of Seals’ habeas petition, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Seals contends that his § 2254 petition was timely filed because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (ADE-PA) one-year limitation period was tolled during the pendency of several preceding state habeas petitions. This contention is unpersuasive. Even according Seals the benefit of tollmg during the pendency of each of his state petitions filed withm the one-year limitations period, his § 2254 petition was still untimely.

The AEDPA’s limitation period began to run when Seals’ state conviction became final on May 14, 1996. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(A); Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1158-59 (9th Cir.1999). The AEDPA limitations period was tolled during the pendency of his properly filed applications for state post-conviction relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2); Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003,…