Linna Ye v. Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LINNA YE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-16742
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00972-MCE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Linna Ye appeals pro se from the district court's
judgment denying her habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court’s denial of a
FILED
FEB 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir.
2011), and we affirm.
Ye contends that her trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective
assistance by failing to investigate, or introduce evidence as to, telephone records
that were introduced by the government. The state court’s rejection of this claim
was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984), nor an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Harrington v. Richter,
562 U.S. 86, 101-03 (2011).
We treat Ye’s additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate of
appealability and deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195
F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
15-16742 2

-- 2 of 2 --