Kazandjian
United States v. Kazandjian
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Hratch Yeremia Kazandjian, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
Kazandjian contends that he timely filed his section 2255 motion. Specifically, Kazandjian argues that the one-year statute of limitations should not start running until November 30, 1998, the date on which his petition for rehearing of the denial of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court was denied. Also, Kazandjian contends that his “Request for Confirmation of Date for Filing a Section 2255 Motion” (hereinafter “Request”) should be construed as the beginning of his habeas case. We are unpersuaded.
Because the denial of certiorari takes immediate effect and is not suspended pending the disposition of a petition for rehearing, in the absence of an order from the Court or a Justice, see Sup.Ct. R. 16.3, the denial of certiorari is the date on which the judgment of conviction is final. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 321 n. 6, 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). Kazandjian’s case became…