Case Name: Enver KARAFILI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, Warden and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-07
Citations: 449 F. App'x 633
Docket Number: No. 09-55388
Parties: Enver KARAFILI, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, Warden and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 449
Pages: 633–634

Head Matter:
Enver KARAFILI, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, Warden and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 09-55388.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 2, 2011.
Filed Sept. 7, 2011.
Enver Karafili, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Quisteen Shum, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attor ney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Enver Karafili appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We affirm.
The district court did not err in finding that Karafili's mental condition was not so severe that he was unable to file a timely federal petition. See Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1099-1100 (9th Cir.2010). As for Karafili's limited English skills, the record does not establish that he requested and was unable to obtain a translator or that it was his limited English skills that caused him to file an untimely federal petition. Cf. Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir.2006). Equitable tolling was correctly denied.
We decline to certify the uncertified issues raised by Karafili.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.