Case Name: Steve BADUE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. BEARD, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-23
Citations: 668 F. App'x 311
Docket Number: No. 15-16586
Parties: Steve BADUE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. BEARD, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 311–311

Head Matter:
Steve BADUE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. BEARD, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-16586
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 16, 2016
Filed August 23, 2016
Steve Badue, Sacramento, CA, Pro Se.
Barton Bowers, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brian R. Means, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Badue’s motion for oral argument is, therefore, denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Former California state prisoner Steve Badue appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a habe-as petition as untimely, see Brambles v. Duncan, 412 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
Badue contends that his actual innocence excuses his untimely filing. This claim fails because Badue has not presented new, reliable evidence demonstrating that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1928, 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013).
Appellee's request for judicial notice is granted.
We treat Badue's additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.