Case Name: Joseph Gideon HANCOCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Ben Curry, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-01
Citations: 368 F. App'x 777
Docket Number: No. 07-17060
Parties: Joseph Gideon HANCOCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Ben Curry, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 777–778

Head Matter:
Joseph Gideon HANCOCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Ben Curry, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 07-17060.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010 .
Filed March 1, 2010.
Ann Catherine McClintock, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
David Andrew Eldridge, Esquire, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. 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 Joseph Gideon Hancock appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Hancock contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for assault with a firearm. The record reflects that the state court's rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
Hancock next contends that the jury instructions improperly lowered the prosecution's burden of proof. The "context of the overall charge" does not support Hancock's contention. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146-47, 94 S.Ct. 396, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973). The state court's rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Hancock's motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.