Case Name: Nicolas Quintero ALVAREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-31
Citations: 286 F. App'x 474
Docket Number: No. 06-16330
Parties: Nicolas Quintero ALVAREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 474–474

Head Matter:
Nicolas Quintero ALVAREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-16330.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2008.
Filed July 31, 2008.
Atmore L. Baggot, Esq., Attorney at Law, Apache Junction, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Nicolas Quintero Alvarez, Florence, AZ, pro se.
Aaron Jay Moskowitz, Esq., AGAZ-Of-fice of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arizona state prisoner Nicholas Quinte-ro Alvarez appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as untimely and procedurally barred. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Alvarez fails to show cause for the default of his federal claim in state court, therefore federal habeas review of the claim is barred. See Thomas v. Lewis, 945 F.2d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir.1991).
Even if Alvarez's claim were not procedurally barred, his contention that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the Antiter-rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's one-year statute of limitations would fail as he cannot demonstrate extraordinary circumstances sufficient to justify equitable tolling. See Allen v. Lewis, 255 F.3d 798, 799-801 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam).
Alvarez's motion 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 (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.