Case ID: f-appx_384/html/0652-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Steven Robert SLOAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rosanne CAMPBELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-16568.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 18, 2010.
    Steven Robert Sloan, lone, CA, pro se.
    Brian R. Means, Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Brian G. Smiley, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    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

California state prisoner Steven Robert Sloan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The issues certified for appeal were whether the district court correctly determined the filing date of Sloan’s federal habeas petition under the prison mailbox rule and whether it correctly concluded that the habeas petition was untimely. The district court properly weighed the evidence concerning the filing date of Sloan’s federal habeas petition and did not err in concluding that the petition was untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988); see also Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir.2001) (prison’s log of outgoing mail provides “strong evidence” of the date a petitioner handed over his habeas petition to prison officials for mailing to the district court).

We construe Sloan’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also 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.