Case ID: f-appx_328/html/0425-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frederick Clark CREASY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO; State of Arizona Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 08-16456.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 16, 2009.
    
    Filed July 01, 2009.
    Frederick Clark Creasy, Jr., Tempe, AZ, pro se.
    Katia Mehu, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.
    
      Before PAEZ, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arizona state prisoner Frederick Clark Creasy, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Creasy’s request for appointment of counsel is denied as moot.

Creasy contends that his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in a number of ways. The state court’s rejection of these claims was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-91, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

To the extent Creasy raises uncertified claims, we construe the argument as a motion to expand the certificate of appeal-ability, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. Rule 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.