Case Name: Luis DOMINGUEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-12
Citations: 210 F. App'x 713
Docket Number: No. 05-16865
Parties: Luis DOMINGUEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 713–713

Head Matter:
Luis DOMINGUEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-16865.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
Filed Dec. 12, 2006.
Luis Dominguez-Cruz, Susanville, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Dane R. Gillette, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Luis Dominguez-Cruz appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.
Dominguez-Cruz contends that his rights to due process, to a fair trial and to cross-examine a witness were violated due to his accomplice's plea agreement. We conclude that the agreement did not violate Dominguez-Cruz's rights. See Allen v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 979, 995 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the state court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Dominguez-Cruz's request to broaden the certificate of appealability is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22~l(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.