
    Marlowe BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. DISTRICT COURT and Rick Hill, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 11-15255.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 22, 2012.
    Marlowe Brown, Represa, CA, pro se.
    Brian G. Smiley, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Marlowe Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the habeas petition as untimely, as it was filed after the one-year statutory limitations period had ended. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); Banjo v. Ayers, 614 F.3d 964, 967-69 (9th Cir.2010).

We construe appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     