MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth Charles McNeil appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm on the basis that his motion is untimely. See United States v. Kaluna, 192 F.3d 1188, 1197 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1999) (“We may affirm on any basis the record supports [.]”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

McNeil contends that the district court erred in failing to construe his October 19, 2009 letter as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because he was in custody on that date, he argues that the district court had jurisdiction over his motion.

Even if the letter is construed as a motion, it was filed over two years after the AEDPA statute of limitations had run. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Contrary to his assertion, he is not entitled to a later start date based on facts known to him at the time of his conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4); United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, McNeil is not entitled to tolling, because *695 the period that he claims should be tolled occurred after the statute of limitations period had run.

AFFIRMED.