Case Name: Jon Charles HOLM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Fernando GONZALEZ, Warden, Acting Warden, California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi, California, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-14
Citations: 518 F. App'x 529
Docket Number: No. 12-55197
Parties: Jon Charles HOLM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Fernando GONZALEZ, Warden, Acting Warden, California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi, California, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 518
Pages: 529–531

Head Matter:
Jon Charles HOLM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Fernando GONZALEZ, Warden, Acting Warden, California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi, California, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-55197.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2013.
Filed May 14, 2013.
William Ronald Pardee, Esquire, William R. Pardee, Woodland Hills, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Roberta L. Davis, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, 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
Petitioner Jon Charles Holm appeals the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction of committing two lewd acts upon a child in violation of California Penal Code § 288(c)(1). The district court granted a Certificate of Appealability as to Holm's claim that the California Court of Appeal's conclusion that his Sixth Amendment right to notice of the charges against him was not violated was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Holm contends that the state trial court's decision to permit an amendment to change the last date of the charged conduct violated that constitutional right. He also presents uncertified claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 2253, review de novo, Lopez v. Thompson, 202 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), and affirm.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, we grant ha-beas relief based on a claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings if the last reasoned state court decision addressing the claims — here, the California Court of Appeal's 2009 decision — was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or "based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding," id. § 2254(d)(2). Applying the deferential review required in habeas corpus proceedings, we cannot conclude that the California Court of Appeal's decision, which determined that Holm had adequate notice of the charges asserted against him based upon evidence presented at his preliminary hearing and the amendment had no impact upon the substantive crimes with which he was charged, meets the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See Gautt v. Lewis, 489 F.3d 993, 1004 (9th Cir.2007) ("[T]he substance of the information . must in some appreciable way apprise the defendant of the charges against him so that he may prepare a defense accordingly.").
In order to broaden a certificate of ap-pealability, Holm must make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" with respect to his uncertified claims, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), by demonstrating that (1) the issues are debatable among jurists of reason, (2) the court could resolve the issues differently, or (3) the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Mendez v. Knowles, 556 F.3d 757, 770-71 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Holm has not made such a show ing, we decline to broaden the certificate of appealability to include his uncertified claims. See id. at 771.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.