Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0610-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kevin Glen RIKARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-15123.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 21, 2012.
    Kevin Glen Rikard, Soledad, CA, pro se.
    Mark Anthony Johnson, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Offiee of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Kevin Glen Rikard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Rikard contends that his due process rights were violated because he was not permitted to allocute at sentencing. Contrary to Rikard’s contention, the state court’s decision rejecting this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court in Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Duhaime v. Ducharme, 200 F.3d 597, 600 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[BJecause of the 1996 AEDPA amendments, [this court] can no longer reverse a state court decision merely because that decision conflicts with Ninth Circuit precedent on a federal Constitutional issue.”).

Rikard’s motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied because he has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” as to that additional claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Mendez v. Small, 298 F.3d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir.2002) (“A state court has the last word on the interpretation of state law.”).

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