Edlund

MEMORANDUM **

Norman Ray Edlund, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We affirm on the certified issue, and decline to reach briefed, but uncertified, issues.

The time for filing a § 2255 motion began to run when Edlund’s judgment became final on March 23, 2002. Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 524-25 , 123 S.Ct. 1072 , 155 L.Ed.2d 88 (2003); Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1065 (9th Cir.2002). While his original motion was timely filed, the amended petition, filed in 2005, was not. Claim 3 of the amended petition, which concerns counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal from sentencing, does not relate back because it “asserts a new ground for relief supported by facts that differ in both time and type from *454 those the original pleading set forth.” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 650 , 125 S.Ct. 2562 , 162 L.Ed.2d 582 (2005).

Nor does Edlund make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right on any uncertified issue. Stokes v. Schriro, 465 F.3d 397 , 401 n. 3 (9th Cir.2006) (noting the standard). Edlund’s amended ineffective assistance claim is time-barred. No extraordinary circumstance stood in…