Case Name: James Earl SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-08
Citations: 361 F. App'x 840
Docket Number: No. 06-55894
Parties: James Earl SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 840–841

Head Matter:
James Earl SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-55894.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 8, 2010.
James Earl Smith, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
Beneth A. Browne, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
California state prisoner James Earl Smith appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
The statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) began to run on August 9, 2000, the day following the denial of Smith's administrative appeal from the denial of parole. See Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1082-85 (9th Cir.2003). Even applying all possible statutory tolling to the time Smith's state habeas petitions were pending in state court, the limitations period expired on December 13, 2004. Accordingly, the instant § 2254 petition, which was submitted to prison officials for mailing on June 23, 2005, was untimely.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.