Case Name: Eric Jay HOLDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David W. MARQUEZ, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-23
Citations: 329 F. App'x 749
Docket Number: No. 07-35455
Parties: Eric Jay HOLDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David W. MARQUEZ, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 749–750

Head Matter:
Eric Jay HOLDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David W. MARQUEZ, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-35455.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009.
Filed July 23, 2009.
Mary C. Geddes, Esq., Fpdak-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Anchorage, AK, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Douglas H. Kossler, Esq., State of Alaska Office of Special Prosecutions & Appeals, Diane L. Wendlandt, Esq., Agak-Office of the Alaska Attorney General (Anchorage) Special Prosecutions & Appeals Division, Anchorage, AK, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, 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
Alaska state prisoner Eric Jay Holden appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Hplden contends that his federal petition was timely because Alaska's post-conviction procedures for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims are in effect a form of "direct review," see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), and therefore the one-year limitations period should not have commenced until the conclusion of those proceedings. This contention lacks merit. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir.2003); cf. Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 710, 716-17 (9th Cir.2007).
We construe Holden's briefing of uncer-tified issues as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also 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.