Case Name: Thomas Le'Roy HENNAGAN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. K. PROSPER; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-02
Citations: 479 F. App'x 73
Docket Number: No. 09-15342
Parties: Thomas Le’Roy HENNAGAN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. K. PROSPER; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 73–74

Head Matter:
Thomas Le’Roy HENNAGAN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. K. PROSPER; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-15342.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 20.12.
Filed July 2, 2012.
Marylou Elin Hillberg, Marylou Hill-berg, Attorney at Law, Sebastopol, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Brian R. Means, Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appel-lees.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, 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 Thomas Le'Roy Hennagan, Jr., appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his 2000 conviction for vehicle theft and receiving stolen property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Hennagan first contends that his trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance. The state court's rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-97, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Hennagan next contends that the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial and the admission into evidence of his prior conviction for vehicle theft violated his constitutional rights. The state court's determination that Hennagan's constitutional rights were not violated was also not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-70, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).
Last, to the extent Hennagan challenges the application of California law, such challenges are not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780, 110 S.Ct. 3092, 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990) ("[Federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law[.]").
Marylou Elin Hillberg's motion to withdraw as Hennagan's counsel is granted.
Hennagan's motion to substitute counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.