Steven Robert Sloan v. ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden

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. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN ROBERT SLOAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-16568
D.C. No. 1:05-cv-01467-AWI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Steven Robert Sloan 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.
FILED
JUN 18 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-16568 2
The issues certified for appeal were whether the district court correctly
determined the filing date of Sloan’s federal habeas petition under the prison
mailbox rule and whether it correctly concluded that the habeas petition was
untimely. The district court properly weighed the evidence concerning the filing
date of Sloan’s federal habeas petition and did not err in concluding that the
petition was untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,
275-76 (1988); see also Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2001)
(prison’s log of outgoing mail provides “strong evidence” of the date a petitioner
handed over his habeas petition to prison officials for mailing to the district court).
We construe Sloan’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); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --