Case Name: Marlowe BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. DISTRICT COURT and Rick Hill, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-22
Citations: 468 F. App'x 768
Docket Number: No. 11-15255
Parties: Marlowe BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. DISTRICT COURT and Rick Hill, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 768–768

Head Matter:
Marlowe BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. DISTRICT COURT and Rick Hill, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 11-15255.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 22, 2012.
Marlowe Brown, Represa, CA, pro se.
Brian G. Smiley, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Marlowe Brown 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 district court properly dismissed the habeas petition as untimely, as it was filed after the one-year statutory limitations period had ended. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); Banjo v. Ayers, 614 F.3d 964, 967-69 (9th Cir.2010).
We construe appellant's additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.