22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T45b,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Clarke Sheldon Lowe appeals 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. Lowe contends that he is entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2). We agree with the district court’s determination that Lowe failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to statutory tolling for the period between the Superior Court’s decision denying his state ha-beas petition and the filing of his petition in the California Court of Appeal. See Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (holding that petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling “[b]ecause Chaffer’s filing delays were substantially longer than the 30 to 60 days that most States allow for filing petitions”) (internal quotation marks omitted). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether Lowe’s habeas petition was timely filed.24:T488,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Clarke Sheldon Lowe appeals 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.

Lowe contends that he is entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2). We agree with the district court’s determination that Lowe failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to statutory tolling for the period between the Superior Court’s decision denying his state ha-beas petition and the filing of his petition in the California Court of Appeal. See Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (holding that petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling “[b]ecause Chaffer’s filing delays were substantially longer than the 30 to 60 days that most States allow for filing petitions”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether Lowe’s habeas petition was timely filed.