MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Janet Mora appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely filed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2258, and we affirm.

Mora contends she is entitled to equitable tolling of AEDPA’s one-year limitation period. This contention lacks merit. Even assuming the statute of limitations began to run when Mora first learned that counsel had not filed an appeal, her petition remains untimely. Equitable tolling is not warranted because Mora failed to show she exercised diligence in pursuing relief or that extraordinary circumstances prevented the timely filing of her § 2254 petition. See Holland v. Florida, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2562, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010); Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005); Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2002).

We decline to consider the uncertified issue raised in Mora’s brief as she has not *976 made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). 1

AFFIRMED.