MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Steven Robert Sloan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

The issues certified for appeal were whether the district court correctly determined the filing date of Sloan’s federal habeas petition under the prison mailbox rule and whether it correctly concluded that the habeas petition was untimely. The district court properly weighed the evidence concerning the filing date of Sloan’s federal habeas petition and did not err in concluding that the petition was untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988); see also Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2001) (prison’s log of outgoing mail provides “strong evidence” of the date a petitioner handed over his habeas petition to prison officials for mailing to the district court).

We construe Sloan’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 *653 also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.