United States of America v. Tu Minh Truong

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TU MINH TRUONG,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-16526
D.C. Nos. 2:07-cv-01213-WBS
2:00-cr-00411-WBS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Tu Minh Truong appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-16526 2
The district court correctly determined that Truong’s petition was not filed
within the one-year limitations period. Truong contends that he is entitled to
equitable tolling because of his lack of proficiency in English. Our review of the
record indicates that the district court did not err in rejecting this argument. See
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005); cf. Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d
1065, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006). We decline to address Truong’s additional equitable
tolling arguments, which he raised for the first time on appeal. See Jiminez v. Rice,
276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001).
In addition, the district court did not err by not sua sponte appointing
counsel to represent Truong. See 18 U.S.C.§ 3006A(a)(2)(B).
Truong’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --