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:T464,MEMORANDUM ** Mauricio Antonio Paredes appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We dismiss the appeal. Because Paredes did not file his Notice of Appeal within thirty days of the entry of judgment on February 16, 2006, 1 and did not file his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion within ten days after the entry of that judgment, 2 we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107 (a); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir.2007). DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1). . See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). The so-called mailbox rule does not apply because Paredes did not even sign the motion papers until after the requisite ten days had passed. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 , 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2385 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004). Moreover, no statement in the motion or evidence indicated that his receipt of the judgment itself was delayed.24:T489,

MEMORANDUM **

Mauricio Antonio Paredes appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We dismiss the appeal.

Because Paredes did not file his Notice of Appeal within thirty days of the entry of judgment on February 16, 2006, 1 and did not file his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion within ten days after the entry of that judgment, 2 we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107 (a); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir.2007).

DISMISSED.

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

. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1).

. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). The so-called mailbox rule does not apply because Paredes did not even sign the motion papers until after the requisite ten days had passed. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 , 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2385 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004). Moreover, no statement in the motion or evidence indicated that his receipt of the judgment itself was delayed.