Faught

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Emmett L. Faught appeals pro se the. district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Reviewing de novo, Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), we affirm.

Faught’s conviction became final prior to April 24, 1996, the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Therefore, absent tolling, Faught had until April 23, 1997 to file a federal habeas petition. See id. at 1105 .

Because the California Supreme Court denied Faught’s state post-conviction petition on timeliness grounds, Faught was not entitled to statutory tolling during the gap between the enactment of AEDPA and the fifing of his section 2254 habeas petition in district court on October 24, 2001. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, — U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1814 , 161 L.Ed.2d 669 , - (2005) (holding that “time limits, no matter their form, are ‘fifing’ conditions. Because the state court rejected petitioner’s [state] petition as untimely, it was not ‘properly filed,’ and he is not entitled to statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2).”); see also Carey v.…