Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals properly denied a certificate of appealability in a habeas corpus proceeding by finding the petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional rights violation

No question identified. : APPLICATION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner respectfully asks the court to extend the time for filing his Petition for Writ of Certiorari to June ist, 2026.Per the court clerk's request, a separate motion for stay is also filed. While Supreme court Rule 30 specifies a 30 day extension, Petitioner asks for the June 1st, 2026 date for cause listed in his motion for stay and letter to the court dated 09-30-2025 and received by the court on 10-15-2025. Petitioner asks the court to grant the more appropriate motion for relief and to "liberally construe" any defect in his Pro se pleadings. VERIFICATION Iam the Petitioner in the above cause of action. I have read the statements and claims contained in these motions are true and correct. Executed under penalty of perjury at Solano County, California on the 28th day of October, 2025. Case Document 69 Filed 06/16/25 PagelD.3705 Page 1 . of 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 16 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 24-2122 D.C. No. Southern District of California, San Diego ORDER PAUL D. CARR, Petitioner Appellant, v. JEFF MACOMBER, Respondent Appellee. Before: H.A. THOMAS and DESAI, Circuit Judges. The motion to accept an oversize document (Docket Entry No. 9) is granted. The motion seeking designation of appellant as an expert witness in the underlying habeas proceedings (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied. The request for a certificate of appealability (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied because appellant has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 USS. 322, 327 (2003). All remaining motions are denied as moot. DENIED. YONG OTE LE, YI ey ry Fy ge UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F | L E D JUL 31 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 24-2122 D.C. No. Southern District of California, San Diego ORDER PAUL D. CARR, Petitioner Appellant, v. JEFF MACOMBER, Respondent Appellee. Before: CALLAHAN and FORREST, Circuit Judges. The motion (Docket Entry No. 12) for reconsideration is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 27-10. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. No. pee IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PAUL DP, CAZR, (Your Name) — PETITIONER VS, JEFF MAcom PER — RESPONDENT(S) PROOF OF SERVICE 2 4 I,_ FAYe)s CARR. -_ , do swear or declare that on this date, _l1la 3° , 2025) as required by Supreme Court Rule 29 J have and PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI on each party to the above proceeding DTA A ape or that party’s counsel, and on évéry other person required to be served, by depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed to each of them and with first-class postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days. The names and addresses of those served are as follows: SofREME COCKT OF THE omtED 6 TATES . J (R37 STREET WE, WASHING TEN B-, 20543 AND THE, OFFIKE oF THE SAN WE, CH I 2NGE I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, Executed on__/@ 3° ; 2025 oan (Signature) Additional material from this filing is available in the Clerk’s Office.