Case Name: Chris C. MENEFEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom FELKER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-02
Citations: 368 F. App'x 810
Docket Number: No. 08-55657
Parties: Chris C. MENEFEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom FELKER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 810–810

Head Matter:
Chris C. MENEFEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom FELKER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-55657.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010 .
Decided March 2, 2010.
Chris C. Menefee, Represa, CA, pro se.
Mark Raymond Drozdowski, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Yun K. Lee, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of The California Attorney General (LA), Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
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 Chris C. Mene-fee appeals 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.
Menefee contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that he committed the offense "with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members" under California Penal Code section 186.22(b)(1). 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).
Menefee'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 is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.