Case Name: Jose Andrew NAVA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-27
Citations: 455 F. App'x 756
Docket Number: No. 08-55304
Parties: Jose Andrew NAVA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 455
Pages: 756–757

Head Matter:
Jose Andrew NAVA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Michael KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-55304.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Oct. 27, 2011.
Jose Andrew Nava, Delano, CA, pro se. Janelle M. Boustany, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California prisoner Jose Andrew Nava appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.
Nava contends that the evidence introduced at his trial was insufficient to support the jury's true finding on a criminal street gang enhancement. The record reflects that the California appellate court's rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law; nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605, 624 n. 10, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 356, 927 P.2d 713 (1996).
We construe Nava'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 provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.