Case Name: Travis Ray THOMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-22
Citations: 377 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 07-56721
Parties: Travis Ray THOMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 377
Pages: 639–639

Head Matter:
Travis Ray THOMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-56721.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 22, 2010.
Travis Ray Thompson, Tehachapi, CA, pro se.
Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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 Travis Ray Thompson appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.
Thompson contends that the trial court violated his rights under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), when it revoked his pro per status mid-trial. The California Court of Appeal's decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834 n. 46, 95 S.Ct. 2525.
Thompson also contends that the introduction of extrinsic evidence into the jury deliberations violated his Sixth Amendment rights. The California Court of Appeal's decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Bayramoglu v. Estelle, 806 F.2d 880, 887 (9th Cir.1986) (citing Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87, 84 S.Ct. 229, 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963)). We reject Thompson's contention that an evidentiary hearing was required with regard to this matter. See Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982); see also Tracey v. Palmateer, 341 F.3d 1037, 1044-45 (9th Cir.2003).
We construe Thompson's uncertified claim, that his Faretta advisements were inadequate, as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-Re); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.