Case Name: Paul E. LEPKOWSKI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rosie B. GARCIA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-05
Citations: 156 F. App'x 935
Docket Number: No. 02-56006
Parties: Paul E. LEPKOWSKI, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Rosie B. GARCIA, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 156
Pages: 935–935

Head Matter:
Paul E. LEPKOWSKI, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Rosie B. GARCIA, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 02-56006.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 2005.
Decided Dec. 5, 2005.
Paul E. Lepkowski, Imperial, CA, pro se.
Chung L. Mar, Esq., AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
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 Paul E. Lepkowski appeals pro se the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction for three counts of second degree robbery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Lepkowski contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct when his law clerk allegedly coached a prosecution witness. We disagree. Even if the statements amounted to misconduct, Lepkowski failed to show that the misconduct "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process." See Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986). Therefore, the state court's adjudication was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of controlling federal law. See Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 979-82 (9th Cir.2000).
To the extent that Lepkowski's brief raises uncertified issues, we construe his arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. See Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam); 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e).
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.