Wright

MEMORANDUM **

Darryl Wright, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of Wright’s habeas petition, we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error, and we affirm. See Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir. 1999).

Wright contends that his § 2254 petition was filed within the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) one-year limitation period based on the date he diligently acquired newly discovered evidence. 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(D) (the one-year time limit begins running on “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence”). The district court properly determined that § 2244(d)(1)(D) did not apply because the record reflects that Wright knew about the “new” evidence at the time of trial. See Hasan v. Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150 , 1154 n. 3 (9th Cir.2001) (stating the statute of limitations begins to run when the prisoner knows the important facts,…