Case Name: Curtis Barnette JOSHUA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Timothy E. BUSBY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-21
Citations: 481 F. App'x 361
Docket Number: No. 09-56275
Parties: Curtis Barnette JOSHUA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Timothy E. BUSBY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 481
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
Curtis Barnette JOSHUA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Timothy E. BUSBY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-56275.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 21, 2012.
Curtis Barnette Joshua pro se.
Theodore Michael Cropley, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, Ca for Respondent Appellee.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Curtis Barnette Joshua 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.
Joshua contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he made a criminal threat within the meaning of California Penal Code section 422 because the evidence did not establish that the victim was in sustained fear for her safety. The state court's determination that there was sufficient evidence to support the criminal threat conviction was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
We construe Joshua'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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.