Taylor

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner-Appellant Anthony Randolph appeals the district court’s dismissal as untimely of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254r-based federal habeas corpus petition. We review the dismissal of a federal habeas petition based on the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (hereinafter “AED-PA”) one-year statute of limitations de novo, see Malcom v. Payne, 281 F.3d 951, 955-56 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm. Be *825 cause the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.

I

The district court correctly applied subsection (A) of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1), rather than subsections (B) or (D), as urged by Randolph.

For subsection (D) to apply, Randolph would have to show that the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence prior to the time he filed his habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1) (2000). None of the four claims on which Randolph seeks relief depend on a factual predicate that was either unknown to Randolph or undiscoverable through the exercise of due diligence. See, e.g., Hasan v. Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir.2001). All of…