Case Name: Banquo D. YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joe MCGRATH, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-29
Citations: 397 F. App'x 397
Docket Number: No. 08-16021
Parties: Banquo D. YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joe MCGRATH, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 397–398

Head Matter:
Banquo D. YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joe MCGRATH, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-16021.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
Walter K. Pyle, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Banquo D. Young, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
Harry Joseph Colombo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Banquo D. Young appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Young's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief with regard to the certified issue and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief and we have considered his November 19, 2008 informal brief. No answering brief has been filed.
The state court's determination of the issue certified for appeal, that sufficient evidence was presented at Young's trial to support his convictions, was not contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief. Accordingly, we deny counsel's request to expand the certificate of appealability. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
We construe the due process arguments in Young's pro se supplemental brief as a motion to expand the certificate of appeal-ability. So construed, the motion is denied. See id.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.