Case Name: Lyn Richard OBERG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Guy HALL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-22
Citations: 389 F. App'x 607
Docket Number: No. 07-36061
Parties: Lyn Richard OBERG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Guy HALL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 607–607

Head Matter:
Lyn Richard OBERG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Guy HALL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-36061.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 22, 2010.
Mark Bennett Weintraub, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eugene, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Douglas Park, Esq., Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Oregon state prisoner Lyn Richard Oberg appeals 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.
Oberg contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition as untimely because the failure by prison officials to mail his notice of appeal concerning his state direct appeal entitles him to equitable tolling. The record reflects that the that Oberg's petition was filed nearly four years after the statute of limitations period began to run, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), and that Oberg is not entitled to equitable tolling because he has not shown that he was diligent in pursuing his rights during the relevant time period. See Bryant v. Arizona Attorney General, 499 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir.2007); cf. Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 970-971 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Oberg's petition. See White v. Klitzkie, 281 F.3d 920, 922 (9th Cir.2002) ("Although the statute of limitations issue was not included in the certificate of appeala-bility, we can affirm the district court on any ground supported by the record.").
Because the district court properly deemed his petition untimely, we do not address the parties' additional contentions.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.