T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A N D Y O . TRO TTER, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. R . L O P E Z , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 17511 D. C. No . 2 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 9 9 6 - GEB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G a r l a nd E . B urr e l l , J r . , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 ** B efo re: W A R D L A W , C L IF T O N , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner A nd y O . T rott erappeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f i rm. T rott ercont ends thatthree evi dent i ary rul i ng s by the st at e tri al court 

# FI LED SEP 21 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 17511 2 v io lated h is co n stitu ti o n al rig h ts. T ro tt erh as n o t sh o w n th at th e trial co u rt’s rul i ngs r e nde r e d hi s tr i a l f unda m e nt a l l y unf

a i rorde ni e d hi m am e a ni ngf ul o p p o rtu n ity to p r e s e n t ac o m p le te d e f e n s e . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( a ) ; Estel le v . McG u i re , 5 0 2 U .S . 6 2 , 7 5 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; Crane v. Kentucky , 47 6 U . S . 68 3, 69 0 (19 86 ). T r ott e rne xtc ont e nds tha tthe ga ng s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e nt s tha the r e c e i ve d unde rC a l . P e na l C ode § 186. 22( b) ( 1) w e r e nots uppor t e d by s uf f i c i e nt evi dence. T hi s c l ai m fa i l s bec ause the st at e c ou rt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthere w as suff i ci entevi dence t o sup po rtthe gang enhancem ent s w as no tcontraryt o, or an u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d f

e d e r a l la w . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ; J

a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 44 3 U . S . 30 7, 31 9 (19 79 ). T r ott e rf i na l l y c ont e nds tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l w a s c ons t i tut i ona l l y de f i c i e nt for f ai l i ng t o o bj ec tt o, and requestadm on i t i on for, the prosecut or’ s a l l eged m is c o n d u c t w h ile e x a m in in g w itn e s s e s a n d m a k in g c lo s in g a r g u m e n ts . T h e s ta te c o u rt’s r e je c tio n o f

th is c la im w a s n e ith e rc o n tr a ry to , n o ra n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f

, Str i c kland v . W

as hi ngton , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 - 8 8 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . See 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ; H arri ng ton v. R i chter , 13 1 S . C t . 77 0, 78 8 (20 11 ). W e c ons true T r ott e r ’ s a ddi t i ona l a r gum e nt s a s am ot i on t o e xpa nd the c e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility . S o c o n s tru e d , th e m o tio n is d e n ie d . See 9th C i r . R . 22- 1 ( e ) ; Hi i v ala v . W

ood , 19 5 F . 3d 10 98 , 11 04 -05 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( per c uri am ). AF F I RME D.