Case ID: f-appx_363/html/0491-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carl Dwayne BISHOP, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-55193.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 26, 2010.
    Robert J. Beles, Esquire, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Steven Taylor Oetting, Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA— Office of the California, Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Carl Dwayne Bishop appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Bishop contends that the prosecutor’s statements during a pretrial interview constituted a promise of leniency that rendered his confession involuntary. However, “in most circumstances, speculation that cooperation will benefit the defendant or even promises to recommend leniency are not sufficiently compelling to overbear a defendant’s will.” United States v. Harrison, 84 F.3d 886, 891 (9th Cir.1994). The state court’s determination that Bishop’s statement was not coerced was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 693-94, 113 S.Ct. 1745, 123 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (providing factors relevant to evaluate possible coercion).

We construe Bishop’s additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1 (e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.