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:T462,MEMORANDUM Former California state prisoner Steve Badue appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a habe-as petition as untimely, see Brambles v. Duncan, 412 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm. Badue contends that his actual innocence excuses his untimely filing. This claim fails because Badue has not presented new, reliable evidence demonstrating that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1928 , 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013). Appellee’s request for judicial notice is granted. We treat Badue’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T499,

MEMORANDUM

Former California state prisoner Steve Badue appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a habe-as petition as untimely, see Brambles v. Duncan, 412 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.

Badue contends that his actual innocence excuses his untimely filing. This claim fails because Badue has not presented new, reliable evidence demonstrating that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1928 , 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013).

Appellee’s request for judicial notice is granted.

We treat Badue’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.