Steven Louis Hirata v. Gail Lewis

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN LOUIS HIRATA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GAIL LEWIS,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 06-55436
D.C. No. CV-03-00504-NM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Nora M. Manella, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2009 **
Before: SKOPIL, LEAVY, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Steven Louis Hirata appeals from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Hirata contends that the trial court violated his Fourteenth Amendment right
to due process by admitting into evidence prior uncharged conduct, tending to
show propensity to commit the charged offenses. We conclude that the state
court’s decision rejecting this claim 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); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 75
n. 5 (1991); Alberni v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 863-7 (9th Cir. 2006).
Hirata also contends that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by eliciting
profile evidence and improper expert testimony, and that the trial court
compounded that misconduct by admitting this evidence in violation of his due
process rights. We conclude that the state court’s decision rejecting this claim was
not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181-3 (1986);
Briceno v. Scribner, 555 F.3d 1069, 1077-8 (9th Cir. 2009); Drayden v. White, 232
F.3d 704, 713-4 (9th Cir. 2000).
To the extent Hirata raises uncertified issues in his briefs, we construe those
contentions as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability and we deny the
motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-5 (9th Cir.
1999) (per curiam).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --