
    Gregory Scott HERMANSKI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Isidro BACA; Nevada Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 14-15485.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 14, 2016.
    
    Filed April 20, 2016.
    Gregory Scott Hermanski, pro se.
    Thomas Kenneth Lee, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    
      Adam Paul Laxalt, Daniel M. Roche, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and REINHARDT and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gregory Scott Hermanski appeals the district court’s denial of his federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Her-manski argues that the district court erred by not considering the merits of his untimely petition because he made a sufficient showing of actual innocence.

A petitioner is entitled to merits consideration of an untimely habeas petition if he can “show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 827, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995). A jury convicted Hermanski of armed robbery and armed burglary. Before the district court, Hermanski offered an affidavit from a fellow laborer who purported to be with Hermanski most of the day of the robbery, but also admitted that he left Hermanski briefly around the time of the robbery. This alibi witness stated that he did “not believe that [Hermanski] could have robbed the motel during the time [he] was gone,” but did not provide an alibi for Hermanski. The times used by the witnesses were approximates, cash and a knife found on Hermanski matched those from the robbery, and the motel clerk identified Hermanski as the assailant shortly after the robbery took place. Her-manski was not entitled to merits consideration of his untimely petition, even in light of this new evidence.

Hermanski also argues that the district court should have ordered the full trial court record and held an evidentiary hearing to'determine the merits of his claims. But our case law only requires such robust inquiry where the record shows that “circumstances consistent with petitioner’s petition” would entitle him to equitable tolling. See Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919, 924 (9th Cir.2003). No such circumstances exist here.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . The parties are familiar with the facts, so we will not recount them here.
     