From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lemusu

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 13, 2014
575 F. App'x 805 (9th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

No. 12-17711 D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00549-HG D.C. No. 1:02-cr-00130-HG

05-13-2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HERMAN LEMUSU, Defendant - Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding

Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Herman Lemusu appeals pro se from the district court's orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely and his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Lemusu contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he was placed in administrative segregation, relied on inadequate legal assistance from a fellow inmate, and was misled by the district court's affirmative misrepresentations. We review the district court's equitable tolling decision de novo. See United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 1196 (9th Cir. 2004). Lemusu's claim to equitable tolling fails because he has not established that the alleged impediments were "extraordinary circumstances" that prevented timely filing of his section 2255 motion. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005) (equitable tolling available where the petitioner shows "(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way").

Lemusu contends that his actual innocence excuses his untimely filing. Assuming this argument is properly before the court, it fails because Lemusu has not demonstrated that, in light of new evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1928 (2013).

Lemusu's motion filed on March 11, 2013, requesting an expansion of the certificate of appealability is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Lemusu

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 13, 2014
575 F. App'x 805 (9th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

United States v. Lemusu

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HERMAN LEMUSU…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: May 13, 2014

Citations

575 F. App'x 805 (9th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

Guo v. IBM 401(K) Plus Plan

at *6 (D. Conn. Oct. 22, 2010) (holding that "[the attorney's] misunderstanding is unfortunate, but it cannot…

Green v. Soto

Nor do the allegedly limited library resources or Petitioner's alleged confinement in administrative…