Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Patrick CALLAHAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-06
Citations: 286 F. App'x 521
Docket Number: No. 06-15321
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Patrick CALLAHAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 521–521

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Patrick CALLAHAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-15321.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2008.
Filed Aug. 6, 2008.
Bruce M. Ferg, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Evo A. Deconcini, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gary Patrick Callahan, Seagoville, TX, pro se.
Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gary Patrick Callahan appeals pro se from the district court's judgment, following this court's remand for an evidentiary hearing, denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Callahan contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to investigate and make known to the jury a sexual relationship between Callahan's girlfriend and a prosecution witness. The district court did not err in concluding that trial counsel was aware of this evidence and that the decision not to present the evidence was not objectively unreasonable. See Babbitt v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir.1998). Accordingly, the district court did not err in determining that counsel was not constitutionally ineffective. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
To the extent that Callahan raises other contentions not certified on appeal, we construe his contentions as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-lie); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.