Dale Dallas Craig v. Nevada Attorney General;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DALE DALLAS CRAIG,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL; et
al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 10-15128
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00571-RCJ-
RAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Dale Dallas Craig appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-15128 2
Craig contends that the district court erred when finding that equitable
tolling of the statute of limitations was not justified. Specifically, Craig argues that
equitable tolling is warranted on the basis of five errors that occurred in his case
before the state courts, including errors related to the entry of an amended
judgment of conviction. However, Craig has failed to demonstrate that
extraordinary circumstances prevented him from filing his federal petition in a
timely manner. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). Further, he
has failed to show that he pursued his rights diligently. See id.
Craig’s request to expand the certificate of appealability 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 --