Case Name: Julio Cesar MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN and Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-23
Citations: 674 F. App'x 737
Docket Number: No. 15-17388
Parties: Julio Cesar MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN and Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 674
Pages: 737–738

Head Matter:
Julio Cesar MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN and Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 15-17388
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 23, 2017
Julio Cesar Morales, Pro Se
Terry Michael Crist, III, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, 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
Arizona state prisoner Julio Cesar Morales appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. 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.
Morales contends that his second trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by promising, but failing to obtain, a more favorable plea offer. The Arizona Court of Appeals' 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, 100-103, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).
We treat Morales's additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability and deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(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.