Court Opinion

ID: 623355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-02-23 01:04:26+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:04.115625
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FEB 22 2012

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARLOWE BROWN,                                   No. 11-15255

               Petitioner - Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03241-JAM

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
U.S. DISTRICT COURT and RICK HILL,
Warden,

               Respondents - Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of California
                     John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted February 21, 2012 **

Before:        FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

       California state prisoner Marlowe Brown 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.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
      The district court properly dismissed the habeas petition as untimely, as it

was filed after the one-year statutory limitations period had ended. See 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d); Banjo v. Ayers, 614 F.3d 964, 967-69 (9th Cir. 2010).

      We construe appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the

certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-

1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    11-15255