MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Daniel Eloy Romero appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The district court did not err by finding that Romero’s federal habeas petition is barred by the one-year statute of limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Romero is not entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) because his February 2003 letter requesting sentence clarification can not be construed as a “properly filed application for State post-conviction relief or other collateral review .... ” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Furthermore, Romero is not entitled to equitable tolling because he has failed to demonstrate the existence of extraordinary circumstances beyond his control that made it impossible for him to file a petition on time. Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003).

In light of the foregoing disposition, we decline to consider the merits of Romero’s argument regarding the denial of earned release credits.

AFFIRMED.