Adkins v. Woodford

MEMORANDUM ** California state prisoner Aldo Adkins appeals pro se 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 . We review de novo, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm. *708 Adkins contends that he is entitled to 90 days of statutory tolling for the time period during which he could have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court following the California Supreme Court’s denial of his post-conviction proceeding. We disagree. See Lawrence v. Florida, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1079, 1088 , — L.Ed.2d—(2007) (concluding that 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2) does not toll the 1-year limitations period during the pendency of a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court following state collateral review); White v. Klitzkie, 281 F.3d 920, 924-25 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Adkins’ petition as time-barred. To the extent Adkins raises uncertified issues, we construe his contentions as a motion to expand the Certificate of Appealability, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam). Finally, in light of the issuance of the opinion in Lawrence , we deny Adkins’ motion to stay the mandate as moot. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.