Case ID: f-appx_677/html/0389-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LINNA YE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 15-16742
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 21, 2017
    Linna Ye, Pro Se
    John Michael Chamberlain, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, 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 Linna Ye appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying her habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

Ye contends that her trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to investigate, or introduce evidence as to, telephone records that were introduced by the government. The state court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), nor an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101-03, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

We treat Ye’s additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate of appeal-ability and deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.