Deurioste

MEMORANDUM **

George DeUrioste, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 , (9th Cir. 1999), and we affirm.

DeUrioste contends that his statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas petition began to run later than April 24, 1996. We reject his contention, and conclude that nothing in the record supports that there was a state impediment that precluded him from filing a timely petition. See § 2244(d)(1)(B). Further, we reject Petitioner’s contention that, pursuant to § 2244(d)(1)(D), he is entitled to statutory tolling for due diligence in pursuing his research and petitions. See Hasan v. Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150 , 1154 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that the statute of limitations begins to run when petitioner knows the important facts, not when their legal significance is recognized).

DeUrioste also contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling for his diligence in the investigation and preparation of his petitions. However, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances beyond his…