Case ID: f-appx_385/html/0618-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TU MINH TRUONG, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-16526.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 17, 2010.
    Kenneth J. Melikian, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Tu Minh Truong, El Reno, OK, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tu Minh Truong appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The district court correctly determined that Truong’s petition was not filed within the one-year limitations period. Truong contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because of his lack of proficiency in English. Our review of the record indicates that the district court did not err in rejecting this argument. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005); cf. Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1070 (9th Cir.2006). We decline to address Truong’s additional equitable tolling arguments, which he raised for the first time on appeal. See Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir.2001).

In addition, the district court did not err by not sua sponte appointing counsel to represent Truong. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).

Truong’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.