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:T505,MEMORANDUM Diallo E. Uhuru appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas peti tion challenging his 2000 conviction for second degree murder. The district court dismissed his petition as untimely, finding that Uhuru was not entitled to equitable tolling for sufficient duration to render his petition timely. We affirm. We decline the state’s suggestion to review the adequacy of the certificate of appealability (COA) issued by the district court because we “are not required to examine allegedly defective COAs in the face of jurisdictional challenges.” Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722, 726 (9th Cir.2004). The district court properly concluded that Uhuru was not entitled to equitable tolling for sufficient duration to make his petition timely. The court carefully reviewed Uhuru’s medical records and determined those periods of time for which Uhuru was and was not entitled to equitable tolling. See Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1099-1100 (9th Cir.2010) (setting out the legal standard for establishing equitable tolling on account of mental illness). The records cited by Uhuru do not undermine the district court’s findings. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T537,

MEMORANDUM

Diallo E. Uhuru appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas peti tion challenging his 2000 conviction for second degree murder. The district court dismissed his petition as untimely, finding that Uhuru was not entitled to equitable tolling for sufficient duration to render his petition timely. We affirm.

We decline the state’s suggestion to review the adequacy of the certificate of appealability (COA) issued by the district court because we “are not required to examine allegedly defective COAs in the face of jurisdictional challenges.” Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722, 726 (9th Cir.2004).

The district court properly concluded that Uhuru was not entitled to equitable tolling for sufficient duration to make his petition timely. The court carefully reviewed Uhuru’s medical records and determined those periods of time for which Uhuru was and was not entitled to equitable tolling. See Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1099-1100 (9th Cir.2010) (setting out the legal standard for establishing equitable tolling on account of mental illness). The records cited by Uhuru do not undermine the district court’s findings.

AFFIRMED.

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