
    Everett V. REEDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jean HILL, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-35188.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 14, 2010.
    C. Renee Manes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    David B. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, AGOR-Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
    
      Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oregon state prisoner Everett V. Reedy appeals 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.

The district court dismissed the petition, among other reasons, because it was untimely. Reedy contends that his petition was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C) because he filed it within one year of the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). This argument lacks merit because Reedy’s conviction and sentence became final before Blakely was decided. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C); see also Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1038 (9th Cir.2005) (concluding that the new rule announced in Blakely does not apply retroactively to a conviction and sentence that were final before that decision was announced).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Reedy’s contention that he has a constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict.

To the extent that Reedy contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, we construe Reedy’s briefing 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     