Case ID: f-appx_583/html/0842-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles WANG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kamala HARRIS, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-16009.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed July 29, 2014.
    Charles Wang, Morgan Hill, CA, pro se.
    Pamela Kay Critchfield, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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 Charles Wang 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. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas petition, see Collins v. Runnels, 603 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

Wang contends that the 102-day delay in holding his parole revocation hearing violated his right to due process. The state court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1259-61 (9th Cir.2008). Wang received full credit against his sentence for the time he spent in pre-revocation incarceration, and he failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the delay. See Santana, 526 F.3d at 1260-61.

We construe Wang’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(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.