N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GREGOR

Y SC OTT HER

M ANSKI, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. ISIDR O B AC A; NEVADA ATTOR NEY GENER AL, R

e sponde n t s - Appe lle e s . No. 14-15485 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-00127-R C J-VPC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R obe rt C live Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 14, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and REINHAR DT a nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED
APR 20 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Gre gory Sc ott He rm anski a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his fe de ra l pe tition for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2254. 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm
. He rm anski a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt
e rre d by not c onside ring the m e rits of his untim e ly pe t ition be c a

use he m a de a suffic i e nt showing of ac tua l innoc e nc e . A pe titione r is e ntitle d to m e rits c o nside ra tion of a n untim e ly ha be a s pe tition if he c an “ show tha

t it is more like ly

tha n not tha t no re a sona

b le juror would ha

ve found pe titione r guilty

be y ond a re a sona ble doubt.” Sc hlup v . De lo , 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995). A jury c onvic te d He rm anski of a rm e d robbe ry

and
arm e d burgla

ry . B e fore the distric t c ourt, He rm anski offe re d a n a ffidav it from

a fe llow la bore r who purporte d to be with He rm anski m ost of theda y of the robbe ry , but a lso a dm itte d tha

t he le ft He rm anski brie fly around the tim e of the robbe ry . This a libi witne ss sta

te d tha t he did “ not be lie ve tha

t [He rm a n ski] c ould ha

ve robbe d the m ote l during thetim e [he ] wa s gone ,” but did not provide an a libi for He rm a nski. Thetim e s use d by

the witne sse s we re a

pproxim at e s, c a sh a

nd a knife found on He rm anski m at c he d those from the robbe ry , a

n d the m ote l c le rk ide n tifie d He rm anski a s the a ssa ila nt shortly a fte r the robbe ry

took pla c e .

1 The pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s, so we will not re c ount the m he re . 2He rm a

nski wa s not e ntitle d to m e rits c onside ra tion of his untim e ly pe tition, e ve n in light of this ne

w e vide nc e . He rm anski a lso a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt should ha v e orde re d the full tria l c ourt re c ord a

nd he ld a n e vide ntia

ry he aring to de te rm ine the m e rits of his
c la im s. B ut our c a se la

w only re quire s suc h

robust inquiry

whe re the re c ord shows that “ c irc um sta

nc e s c onsiste nt with pe titione r’ s pe tition”would e ntitle him to
e quita ble tolling. Se e Law

s v . Lamarque , 351 F.3d 919, 924 (9th C i r. 2003). No
suc h c i rc um sta

nc e s e xist he re . AFFIRM E D.

3