Case Name: CHOR BOLO LOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.C. KRAMER, 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 636
Docket Number: No. 07-16604
Parties: CHOR BOLO LOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.C. KRAMER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 636–636

Head Matter:
CHOR BOLO LOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.C. KRAMER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-16604.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 22, 2010.
Chor Bolo Lor, San Quentin, CA, pro se.
Catherine Chatman, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Janet Ellen Neeley, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, 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
California state prisoner Chor Bolo Lor appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Lor contends that the district court erred by determining that he was not entitled to certain gap tolling of the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). The district court did not err because the 140-day delay between the California Court of Appeal's denial of his habeas petition and the filing of his habeas petition with the California Supreme Court was unreasonable. See Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam).
We deny Lor's October 15, 2007, pro se motion requesting that this court consider additional claims not certified by the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (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.