Case Name: David ARZATE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. F.A. GONZALES, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-23
Citations: 623 F. App'x 356
Docket Number: No. 12-17618
Parties: David ARZATE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. F.A. GONZALES, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
David ARZATE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. F.A. GONZALES, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-17618.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Nov. 23, 2015.
David Arzate, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
Carolyn M. Wiggin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
David Andrew Eldridge, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, 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 David Arzate appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
Arzate raises two challenges to his convictions for attempted murder and related offenses. The district court granted a certificate of appealability only as to Arzate's claim that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for active participation in a criminal street gang. While this appeal was pending, the state court dismissed that count. As Arzate concedes, because he is no longer in custody for the criminal street gang offense, the certified claim is moot. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066, 135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996) (per curiam).
Arzate's unopposed motion to construe the opening brief as a request for a certificate of appealability as to his additional claim is granted. The request for a certificate of appealability is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3,
. We treat Arzate's notice regarding the status of the case as a request for judicial notice of the state court order and abstract of judgment dated May 6, 2014. So treated, the request is granted.