MEMORANDUM *

Ubaldo Gutierrez, a California state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The facts are known to the parties and will not be repeated here except to the extent necessary.

Gutierrez is not entitled to statutory tolling for the 134-day period between the superior court’s denial of his habeas petition 1 and the filing of habeas and coram nobis petitions in the court of appeal. See Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (holding that filing delays of 101 and 115 days did not warrant statutory tolling where the petitions offered no explanation for the delays as required under California law).

Gutierrez is also not entitled to equitable *953 tolling for the same 134-day period. 2 His confusion about the proper address of the court of appeal does not constitute an “extraordinary circumstance,” but rather a “garden variety claim of excusable neglect” that “does not warrant equitable tolling.” Holland v. Florida, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2563-64, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.