Case ID: f-appx_223/html/0621-01.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. David C. WAMHOFF, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-35882.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 .
    Filed Feb. 28, 2007.
    Christopher L. Cardani, AUS, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David C. Wamhoff, Ft. Worth, TX, pro se.
    Before BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner David C. Wamhoff appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo, United States v. LaFromboise, 427 F.3d 680, 683 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.

Conceding that he did not timely file his § 2255 motion, Wamhoff contends that the one-year limitation period that applies to such motions is unconstitutional. This contention is foreclosed. See Green v. White, 223 F.3d 1001, 1003-04 (9th Cir.2000). Furthermore, because Wamhoff has made no argument for tolling, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed his § 2255 motion as untimely.

We construe Wamhoffs briefing of uncertified issues as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e). So construed, we deny the motion. See Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

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