Case Name: Joseph Oliver DEMAGNUS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W.L. MONTGOMERY, Acting Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-30
Citations: 581 F. App'x 673
Docket Number: No. 13-55078
Parties: Joseph Oliver DEMAGNUS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W.L. MONTGOMERY, Acting Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 581
Pages: 673–673

Head Matter:
Joseph Oliver DEMAGNUS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W.L. MONTGOMERY, Acting Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-55078.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 25, 2014.
Filed June 30, 2014.
Joseph Oliver Demagnus, Calipatria, CA, pro se.
Heidi Salerno, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, 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 Joseph Oliver Demagnus appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.
Demagnus contends that his trial counsel was constitutionally deficient for failing to investigate Demagnus's alibi and present the testimony of alibi witnesses at trial. The state court's rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). In light of the overwhelming evidence that Demagnus was present at the scene of the crime, he cannot establish that there is no "reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland's deferential standard." See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 131 S.Ct. 770, 788, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).
We construe Demagnus's additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); 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.