Case ID: f-appx_477/html/0430-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Don Carlos BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kenneth CLARK, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-56158.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    July 2, 2012.
    
    Don Carlos Brown, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Carl Nolan Henry, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, 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 Don Carlos Brown 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.

Brown contends that the trial court’s decision to allow a gang expert to testify that he had heard that Brown had been beaten up by a rival gang member a month before the shooting violated Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). We agree with the district court- that Brown is not entitled to federal habeas relief because any error in admitting the challenged testimony was harmless. See Jackson v. Brown, 513 F.3d 1057, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2008) (Confrontation Clause violation does not support federal habeas relief absent substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s verdict.).

We construe Brown’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(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.