Case Name: Janet L. MORA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mary LATTIMORE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-15
Citations: 413 F. App'x 975
Docket Number: No. 08-56018
Parties: Janet L. MORA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mary LATTIMORE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 413
Pages: 975–976

Head Matter:
Janet L. MORA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mary LATTIMORE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-56018.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
Filed Feb. 15, 2011.
Stephanie Marie Adraktas, Law Office of Stephanie Adraktas, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Janet L. Mora, Chowehilla, CA, pro se.
Viet Huy Nguyen, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Janet Mora appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely filed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 2258, and we affirm.
Mora contends she is entitled to equitable tolling of AEDPA's one-year limitation period. This contention lacks merit. Even assuming the statute of limitations began to run when Mora first learned that counsel had not filed an appeal, her petition remains untimely. Equitable tolling is not warranted because Mora failed to show she exercised diligence in pursuing relief or that extraordinary circumstances prevented the timely filing of her § 2254 petition. See Holland v. Florida, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2562, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010); Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005); Miranda v. Castro, 292 F.3d 1063, 1066-67 (9th Cir.2002).
We decline to consider the uncertified issue raised in Mora's brief as she has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104 (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.
. Mora's unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED in part. The court takes judicial notice of the trial court's minute order of July 29, 2005 and Mora's Motion for Production of Transcripts filed September 14, 2006.