FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BEGOIA MORGANDE, No. 12-16267
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01824-MMS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JAMES E. TILTON; D. K. SISTO,
Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Mary M. Schroeder, Circuit Judge, Presiding **
Submitted September 24, 2013 ***
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Mary M. Schroeder, Senior United States Circuit
Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
California state prisoner Begoia Morgande appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motion to reopen the time to file an appeal of the
judgment. We affirm.
Morgande contends the district court erred when it denied his motion to
reopen the time to file an appeal. We review for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not
abuse its discretion when it denied Morgande’s motion under Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) because it was filed more than two years after the
judgment had been entered. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B); In re Stein, 197 F.3d
421, 425 (9th Cir. 1999) (district courts lack discretion to grant motions to reopen
filed outside the 180-day period in Rule 4(a)(6)(B) even if appellant did not receive
notice of the judgment).
We construe Morgande’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.
2 12-16267