NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 2 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DE ANDRE CERRONE SCOTT, No. 14-16653
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02492-WBS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MIKE McDONALD,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California State prisoner De Andre Cerrone Scott appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition
challenging his 2008 convictions for murder and robbery. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas
*
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).
corpus petition, see Murdaugh v. Ryan, 724 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2013), and
we affirm.
Scott contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a fair and
impartial jury when three jurors allegedly formed an opinion of guilt outside the
presence of the jury room and away from the remaining members of the jury. The
state court’s determination that the juror’s conversation did not infect the
deliberations with any sort of prejudice or bias was not contrary to, or an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Harrington v.
Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101-02 (2011). Moreover, Scott has failed to present any
evidence that would overcome the presumption that the state court’s credibility
findings are correct. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).
We treat Scott’s briefing of additional issues as a request to expand the
certificate of appealability. So treated, the request is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-
1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-16653