Case ID: f-appx_114/html/0851-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David L. HILL, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert O. LAMPERT, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 02-35820.
    D.C. No. CV-00-00991-TMC.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
    
    Decided Dec. 9, 2004.
    Anthony David Bornstein, FPDOR— Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
    Lynn David Larsen, Asst. Atty. General, Office of the Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oregon state prisoner David L. Hill, Jr., appeals the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Hill concedes that he was not entitled to continuous tolling between his first and second state habeas petitions because the second petition was not “an elaboration of the facts relating to the claims in the first petition.” See King v. Roe, 340 F.3d 821, 823 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam).

Because Hill’s contention regarding equitable tolling was not certified for appeal, we construe it as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.