USA V. EDWARD MALLORY, No. 14-17239 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 01 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-17239 D.C. Nos. 2:12-cv-02700-EJG 2:09-cr-00090-WBS v. MEMORANDUM* EDWARD MALLORY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Edward Mallory appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s decision that a section 2255 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). motion is untimely, see United States v. Battles, 362 F.3d 1195, 1196 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. Mallory contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling for the period between January 30, 2012, and July 18, 2012, during which his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 was pending in the district court. Neither the pendency of Mallory’s section 3582(c)(2) motion nor his lack of legal expertise constitute extraordinary circumstances that kept him from timely filing a section 2255 motion. See Battles, 362 F.3d at 1197 (stating standard for equitable tolling); see also Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[L]ack of legal sophistication is not, by itself, an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling.”). We further note that the issue presented in Mallory’s section 3582(c)(2) motion was unrelated to that presented in his section 2255 motion, and considerations of judicial economy do not require a different result here. AFFIRMED. 2 14-17239

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.