Ramirez

MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Angel Ramirez appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his Nevada State guilty-plea conviction for burglary and battery as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of Ramirez’s federal habeas petition, see Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 406 , 151 L.Ed.2d 308 (2001), and we affirm.

Ramirez contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (“AEDPA”) one-year statute of limitations period on three separate grounds: 1) untimely delivery and receipt of remittitur; 2) administrative segregation resulting in denial of access to legal documents; and 3) exceptional circumstances regarding the merits of his petition. We disagree.

The AEDPA’s limitation period began to run in Ramirez’s case on April 24, 1996, as his state conviction became final in 1986. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(A); Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157, 1158-59 (9th Cir.1999). Absent any tolling during the pendency of an application for State post-conviction…