MEMORANDUM**

Aramis Gomez appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal as untimely, his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We review de novo, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir. 1999), and we affirm.

Gomez contends, based on the prison mailbox rule and equitable tolling, that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s statute of limitations period was tolled on February 24, 1999, when he mailed his state habeas petition to his mother for her to forward to the court. We disagree. Because Gomez mailed his petition to a third party, he is not entitled to the benefit of the prison mailbox rule. *822See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) (concluding that petition was filed when pro se petitioner delivered it to prison authorities).1 Even with an additional 30 days pursuant to Bunney v. Mitchell, 262 F.3d 973, 974 (9th Cir. 2001), Gomez’s petition is untimely. We reject Gomez’s equitable tolling contention because he has failed to allege facts to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances beyond his control made it impossible for him to file his petition on time. See Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999).2

AFFIRMED.