United States v. Edward Mallory ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             AUG 01 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-17239
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. Nos.    2:12-cv-02700-EJG
    2:09-cr-00090-WBS
    v.
    EDWARD MALLORY,                                  MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 26, 2016**
    Before:        SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Federal prisoner Edward Mallory appeals from the district court’s order
    denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28
    U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s decision that a section 2255
    *
    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).
    motion is untimely, see United States v. Battles, 
    362 F.3d 1195
    , 1196 (9th Cir.
    2004), and we affirm.
    Mallory contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling for the period
    between January 30, 2012, and July 18, 2012, during which his motion to reduce
    his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 was pending in the district court. Neither the
    pendency of Mallory’s section 3582(c)(2) motion nor his lack of legal expertise
    constitute extraordinary circumstances that kept him from timely filing a
    section 2255 motion. See 
    Battles, 362 F.3d at 1197
    (stating standard for equitable
    tolling); see also Rasberry v. Garcia, 
    448 F.3d 1150
    , 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[L]ack
    of legal sophistication is not, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance warranting
    equitable tolling.”). We further note that the issue presented in Mallory’s section
    3582(c)(2) motion was unrelated to that presented in his section 2255 motion, and
    considerations of judicial economy do not require a different result here.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      14-17239
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-17239

Judges: Schroeder, Canby, Callahan

Filed Date: 8/1/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024