Case Name: Regal ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-23
Citations: 203 F. App'x 771
Docket Number: No. 05-56823
Parties: Regal ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 771–772

Head Matter:
Regal ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-56823.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.
Filed Oct. 23, 2006.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Jan. 19, 2007.
Regal Robinson, Calipatria, CA, pro se.
Atty Gen Cas Fax, Kevin R. Vienna, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
James E. Tilton is substituted for his predecessor, Jeanne S. Woodford, who was Director of the California Department of Corrections, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Regal Robinson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pur suant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court's ruling on the merits of a habeas corpus petition, see Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 376 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
Robinson contends that the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges violated his constitutional rights, and that the district court erred in finding that he failed to prove purposeful racial discrimination by the prosecution. We disagree. After a de novo review, we conclude that the state trial court's ruling on People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 CaLRptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (Cal.1978), motion was not error. See Bat-son v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96-97, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986); Williams v. Runnels, 432 F.3d 1102, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the district court properly denied this claim.
To the extent Robinson raises uncerti-fied issues, we construe his arguments as a motion to expand the Certificate of Ap-pealability, 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 cu-riam).
We also deny Robinson's request for an initial hearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 35(b).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.