Case Name: Dale Dallas CRAIG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-24
Citations: 411 F. App'x 964
Docket Number: No. 10-15128
Parties: Dale Dallas CRAIG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 964–965

Head Matter:
Dale Dallas CRAIG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 10-15128.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 24, 2011.
Dale Dallas Craig, Carson City, NV, pro se.
Catherine Cortez Masto, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, Dennis Cavanagh Wilson, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Nevada state prisoner Dale Dallas Craig 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, and we affirm.
Craig contends that the district court erred when finding that equitable tolling of the statute of limitations was not justified. Specifically, Craig argues that equitable tolling is warranted on the basis of five errors that occurred in his case before the state courts, including errors related to the entry of an amended judgment of conviction. However, Craig has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances prevented him from filing his federal petition in a timely manner. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005). Further, he has failed to show that he pursued his rights diligently. See id.
Craig's request to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22—1(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.