to argue on appeal his waiver and sua sponte dismissal issues, we should then reject the petitioner’s arguments on the merits. In my judgment, the district court acted in conformity not only with AEDPA but also with the caselaw construing AED-PA. Congress intended AEDPA to further the principles of comity, finality, and federalism. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 436, 120 S.Ct. 1479, 146 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (stating that “there is no doubt Congress intended AEDPA to advance these doctrines [comity, finality, and federalism]”). Consistent with such purpose, Congress created a one-year limitations period that was meant to streamline the habeas review process and to lend finality to state court convictions. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 2128, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001) (<HOLDING>); see also H.R. Cong. Rep. No. 104-518, at 111
recognizing that exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statute serves as only effective deterrent of such violations recognizing as well that such uninhibited communication serves the public interest by facilitating the administration of appropriate treatment recognizing that the 1 year limitation period of  2244d1 quite plainly serves the wellrecognized interest in the finality of state court judgments holding that appellate court may raise issues of default sua sponte where necessary to protect inter alia the finality of federal criminal judgments holding constitutional a statute providing that a mineral interest would lapse to the surface owner if the interest owner either made no use of the interest or failed to file a claim with the state within a twenty year period