Gosney

MEMORANDUM **

Donald G. Gosney appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. Gosney seeks to challenge his state conviction for three counts of first degree rape of a child and four counts of first degree child molesta *251 tion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

We granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on the sole issue of whether Gosney’s § 2254 petition was timely filed. 1 Based on our de novo review, Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), we conclude that the petition was untimely-

A one-year statute of limitations is imposed on the filing of a § 2254 petition. § 2244(d)(1); Dictado v. Ducharme, 244 F.3d 724, 726 (9th Cir.2001). The statute of limitations in this case began to run on March 4, 1997, when Gosney’s conviction became final. § 2244(d)(2); Tillema v. Long, 253 F.3d 494, 498 (9th Cir.2001). Absent any tolling, Gosney’s § 2254 petition was due by March 4, 1998. See Tillema, 253 F.3d at 498 .

The statute of limitations is tolled for the entire period in which a petitioner is appropriately pursuing and exhausting his state remedies. Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003,…