Graham

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Willie James Graham appeals pro se the district court’s *928 dismissal as untimely of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his conviction for first degree residential robbery with a prior. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258 . We affirm.

Graham contends that his federal petition is timely under the statute of limitations because he is entitled to sufficient tolling and because the state court did not submit adequate proof of his untimeliness.

We conclude that Graham’s federal petition is untimely since he is not entitled to statutory tolling for the gaps between the denial of his first habeas petition to the California Supreme Court, and the commencement of his next round of petitions, and between the first denial by the California Court of Appeal and his subsequent filing in the California Court of Appeal. See Biggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir.2003) (recognizing that because petitioner’s first round of collateral review is complete when the state supreme court’s denial becomes final, a petitioner is not entitled to entitled to statutory tolling of the time before he begins a…