in that state.” Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1148 (9th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted), amended by 439 F.3d 993 (9th Cir.2006). An untimely state petition is not “properly filed” and triggers no tolling. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 414, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005). Both the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court summarily denied Hamilton’s state habeas petitions. The district court correctly interpreted those summary denials by “looking through” them to the reasoning of the California Superior Court, Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803, 111 S.Ct. 2590, 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991), which had held that Hamilton’s initial state petition was both untimely and meritless. See also Cannedy v. Adams, 706 F.3d 1148, 1158-59 (9th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). Because the Superi- or Court denied
holding that blakely v washington 542 us 296 124 sct 2531159 led2d 403 2004 did not overrule almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 holding that the rule for habeas review in brown v smith 551 f3d 424 6th cir 2008 had been called into doubt by harrington v richter 562 us 86 131 sct 770 178 led2d 624 2011 even though robinson v howes 663 f3d 819 823 n2 6th cir 2011 which was decided after harrington applied brown holding that de minimis standard survives gonzales v raich 545 us 1 125 sct 2195 162 led2d 1 2005 holding that ylsts look through doctrine survives harrington v richter  us  131 sct 770 178 led2d 624 2011 holding that  an award of makewhole relief in the form of surcharge was within the scope of appropriate equitable relief for purposes of  502a3 quoting cigna corp v amara  us  131 sct 1866 1880 179 led2d 843 2011