Sofalo Brown v. James D. Hartley

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 6 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SOFALO MATESE BROWN, No. 09-17118 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00216-FCD- GGH v. JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden, MEMORANDUM * Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2011 ** Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Sofalo Matese Brown appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm. * 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). Brown contends that the state prosecutor in his criminal trial denied his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial by intimidating a defense witness who chose not to testify. The California Court of Appeal’s determination that there was no prosecutorial misconduct was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792-93 (2001). We construe the inclusion of an uncertified issue in the opening brief as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e). So construed, the motion is denied. See Hivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). Kathleen C. Page’s motion to withdraw as Brown’s counsel is granted. We construe Brown’s letter dated December 31, 2010, as a motion for appointment of new counsel, and deny the motion. AFFIRMED. 2 09-17118