Ray

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner James Franklin Ray appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, alter, or set aside his sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a), and we affirm.

Ray contends that the district court erred in dismissing his § 2255 motion as time-barred. Specifically, Ray contends that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 (2), (3) and (4), the statute of limitations did not begin running prior to the filing of his motion. We disagree. First, Ray has not demonstrated an impediment created by governmental action for purposes of § 2255(2). Second, although Ray contends that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), provides him with a “newly recognized” right within the meaning of § 2255(3), the rule announced in Apprendi has not been “made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.” United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664, 671 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 939 , 123 S.Ct. 48 , 154 L.Ed.2d 243 (2002). Third, with respect to § 2255(4), Ray’s habeas claims are based on facts which were or could have been known to him at…