Case Name: Joshua Moses HELLON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. T. FELKER, Warden and Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-05
Citations: 451 F. App'x 699
Docket Number: No. 10-16248
Parties: Joshua Moses HELLON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. T. FELKER, Warden and Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 451
Pages: 699–700

Head Matter:
Joshua Moses HELLON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. T. FELKER, Warden and Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 10-16248.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 5, 2011.
Joshua Moses Hellon, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Stephanie Ayn Mitchell, Deputy Attorney General, Mark Anthony Johnson, Deputy Attorney General, Justain Riley, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, 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
California state prisoner Joshua Moses Hellon appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Helton contends that the prosecutor engaged in vindictive prosecution by amending the criminal information to add a second strike prior to his trial. The state court's rejection of Helton's claim of vindictive prosecution was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 381-82, 102 S.Ct. 2485, 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982) (in cases involving pre-trial charging decisions, timing of decision atone is insufficient to create presumption of vindictiveness).
Furthermore, in light of the prosecutor's explanation for why she did not initially charge Helton's second strike, the state court's decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
Helton's motion to expand the record is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.