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:T423,MEMORANDUM Arizona state prisoner Gregory Richard Torrez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. Torrez contends that the district court erred by treating his second state petition for post-conviction relief as a collateral attack on his conviction rather than as an amendment to his original Rule 32 petition for purposes of calculating the timeliness of his petition. The district court did not err. See Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 710, 715-17 (9th Cir.2007). Accordingly, Torrez’s federal petition was properly dismissed as untimely. We construe Torrez’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also 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 provid ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T455,

MEMORANDUM

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

Torrez contends that the district court erred by treating his second state petition for post-conviction relief as a collateral attack on his conviction rather than as an amendment to his original Rule 32 petition for purposes of calculating the timeliness of his petition. The district court did not err. See Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 710, 715-17 (9th Cir.2007). Accordingly, Torrez’s federal petition was properly dismissed as untimely.

We construe Torrez’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also 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 provid ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.