Case Name: Carlos O. CANEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard E. EARLY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-10
Citations: 114 F. App'x 891
Docket Number: No. 03-16332
Parties: Carlos O. CANEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Richard E. EARLY, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 891–891

Head Matter:
Carlos O. CANEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Richard E. EARLY, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-16332.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 10, 2004.
Carlos O. Canez, Delano, CA, pro se.
Arnold O. Overoye, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carlos O. Canez, a California state prisoner, appeals from the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his convictions for second-degree murder. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we reverse.
Canez contends, and the government concedes, that his federal habeas petition was timely filed. We agree. The district court correctly determined when the limitations period began and when Canez was entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), but appears to have made a mathematical error in calculating when the limitations period expired. We therefore reverse the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.