Case Name: Rondell L. WEBB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Scott KERNAN, Warden; Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-02
Citations: 390 F. App'x 720
Docket Number: No. 08-17364
Parties: Rondell L. WEBB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Scott KERNAN, Warden; Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 720–721

Head Matter:
Rondell L. WEBB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Scott KERNAN, Warden; Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-17364.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
Rondell L. Webb, Represa,- CA, pro se.
Heather M. Heckler, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Rondell L. Webb appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Webb contends that the district court erred in dismissing as untimely his petition challenging denial of parole. The district court found the petition untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and also determined that various claims asserted by Webb were procedurally defaulted, unexhausted, challenges to the application of state law not cognizable on federal habeas review. We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See Buckley v. Terhune, 441 F.3d 688, 694 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc).
The statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) began to run on January 10, 2002, the day Webb's time to file an administrative appeal lapsed and the challenged decision became final. See Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1082-85 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, his federal habeas petition, signed and presumably submitted to prison officials for mailing on February 2, 2005, was untimely.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.