Case Name: LINNA YE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-21
Citations: 677 F. App'x 389
Docket Number: No. 15-16742
Parties: LINNA YE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 389–390

Head Matter:
LINNA YE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-16742
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 21, 2017
Linna Ye, Pro Se
John Michael Chamberlain, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, 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 Linna Ye appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying her habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
Ye contends that her trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to investigate, or introduce evidence as to, telephone records that were introduced by the government. The state court's rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), nor an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101-03, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).
We treat Ye's additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate of appeal-ability and deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.