Stambaugh

MEMORANDUM **

AMs Lee Stambaugh, Jr., appeals pro se the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred, challenging his California conviction for selling, transporting, or offering to sell cocaine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Reviewing de nove, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), we affirm.

Stambaugh contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s one-year statute of limitations period on the ground that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge his prior conviction for residential burglary on the basis of “legal innocence.” 1 We disagree.

Stambaugh does not challenge the district court’s finding that his section 2254 petition was filed after the statute of limitations expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1)(A). Where, as here, a petitioner seeks equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, petitioner must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances beyond his control that made it impossible to file a petition on time. Miles, 187 F.3d at 1107 .

Stambaugh asserts that his case involves extraordinary circumstances because his various…