Case Name: Jimmy Earl DOWNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lenard VARE and Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-18
Citations: 443 F. App'x 312
Docket Number: No. 10-15624
Parties: Jimmy Earl DOWNS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Lenard VARE and Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 443
Pages: 312–313

Head Matter:
Jimmy Earl DOWNS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Lenard VARE and Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 10-15624.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 18, 2011.
Jimmy Earl Downs, Indian Springs, NV, pro se.
Thom Gover, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes dais case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nevada state prisoner Jimmy Earl Downs appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition with prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Downs contends that his conviction for grand larceny and robbery violated the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy. The Nevada Supreme Court rejected this claim, reasoning that, under Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), each crime required the proof of a fact not required by the other. As we are bound by the Nevada Supreme Court's determination that state law permitted conviction for both grand larceny and robbery within the context of a single trial, see Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368, 103 S.Ct. 673, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983), we conclude that that court's rejection of Downs's double jeopardy challenge was neither contrary to nor based upon an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Hunter, 459 U.S. at 366-69, 103 S.Ct. 673.
Downs also urges us to consider several other claims that were either dismissed by the district court as procedurally defaulted or denied on the merits. We construe Downs's additional arguments as a renewal of his motions to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(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.