Case Information
*1 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: [*]
Sylvester Rollins, now Louisiana prisoner # 76405, was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. This court granted him leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application in district court. In re Rollins , 381 F. App’x 365, 369 (5th Cir. 2010). After the district court dis- missed that application, we granted Rollins a certificate of appealability (“COA”) regarding his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We advised that we might consider on appeal whether the § 2254 application is time-barred, proce- durally barred, or subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B).
Rollins argues that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by fail- ing to locate and call certain witnesses; that the absence of those witnesses from trial violated his rights to due process and equal protection; and that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period because he diligently sought the witnesses and pursued his claims. He waived his claim regarding due- process and equal-protection rights by failing to raise it in his COA motion, and that claim is outside the scope of the COA. See Simmons v. Epps , 654 F.3d 526, 535 (5th Cir. 2011), petition for cert. filed (Dec. 27, 2011) (No. 11-8085).
This court may consider the limitations issue now and may affirm on that ground if it is supported by the record. See Scott v. Johnson , 227 F.3d 260, 262- 63 (5th Cir. 2000). A person in state custody has one year in which to file a timely application for federal habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). That period began on “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” § 2244(d)(1)(D). Even if we assume that limitations were tolled pursuant to § 2244(d)(2) until September 26, 2008, when Rollins’s last state post-conviction application was denied by the Louisiana Supreme Court, Rollins did not file his § 2254 application within one year of that denial. His motion seeking this court’s authorization to file a successive § 2254 application did not toll limitations or satisfy the filing requirement. See Duncan v. Walker , 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001); Fierro v. Cockrell , 294 F.3d 674, 680-81 (5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, Rol- lins has not shown that he is entitled to equitable tolling. Howland v. Quarter- man , 507 F.3d 840, 845 (5th Cir. 2007); Fisher v. Johnson , 174 F.3d 710, 715 (5th Cir. 1999).
Because the dismissal can be affirmed on limitations grounds, we need not consider the ineffective-assistance claim. The judgment is AFFIRMED.
[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.