Case ID: f-appx_615/html/0466-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

De Andre Cerrone SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike McDONALD, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-16653.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 2, 2015.
    De Andre Cerrone Scott, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
    Craig Steven Meyers, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    
      Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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 De Andre Cer-rone 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 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, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (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. 221(e); 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.