Case Name: Tyrone L. MORGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cheryl K. PLILER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-13
Citations: 131 F. App'x 114
Docket Number: No. 04-17163; D.C. No. CV-01-03547-WHA
Parties: Tyrone L. MORGAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Cheryl K. PLILER, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 114–115

Head Matter:
Tyrone L. MORGAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Cheryl K. PLILER, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-17163.
D.C. No. CV-01-03547-WHA.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 2005.
Decided May 13, 2005.
Tyrone L. Morgan, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Gregory A. Ott, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for for Respondent-Appellee.
Before PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, 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 Tyrone L. Morgan appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction for attempted murder and assault with a firearm. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see Leavitt v. Arave, 371 F.3d 663, 668 (9th Cir.2004), we affirm.
Morgan contends that he was denied a fair trial because a juror made statements during deliberations regarding his experience having been shot in Vietnam and his knowledge of semi-automatic weapons in the context of a discussion of specific intent to kill. This contention lacks merit. We agree with the district court that the juror's comments regarding his wounds in Vietnam and regarding semi-automatic weapons cannot be said to have had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).
To the extent Morgan raises arguments not encompassed within the certificate of appealability ("COA"), we construe these as a motion to broaden the COA and deny the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-l(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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.