Branham

*209 MEMORANDUM **

William Branham, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Biggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045, 1047 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

Branham argues that two events tolled the limitations period. First, Branham filed a mandamus petition in state court to compel his trial counsel to turn over his case file. Branham argues that the limitations period tolled both equitably and statutorily while the mandamus petition was pending. Second, he argues that the limitations period equitably tolled between the time the Nevada Supreme Court issued its remittitur on his state post-conviction attack and the time he received the court clerk’s letter confirming the remittitur’s issuance. This second period, he argues, warrants equitable tolling because his state post-conviction counsel did not notify him of the remittitur’s issuance.

First, the limitations period did not statutorily toll while his mandamus petition was pending. Statutory tolling applies while a “properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review…