Case Name: Dustin L. SMITHSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mel HUNTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-18
Citations: 227 F. App'x 684
Docket Number: No. 05-15142
Parties: Dustin L. SMITHSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mel HUNTER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 684–685

Head Matter:
Dustin L. SMITHSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mel HUNTER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-15142.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 18, 2007.
Dustin L. Smithson, Atascadero, CA, John Ward, Esq., Law Offices of John Ward, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Paul E. O’Connor, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, 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 hospital inmate Dustin L. Smithson appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his re-commitment as a sexually violent predator, pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code § 6604. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Reviewing de novo, Mendez v. Small, 298 F.3d 1154, 1157-58 (9th Cir.2002), we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
To the extent Smithson raises uncertified issues, we construe such argument as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. 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.