Edward G. Ontiveros v. R. CAMPBELL and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD G. ONTIVEROS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
R. CAMPBELL and ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 09-17739
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02893-JCW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
J. Clifford WALLACE, Circuit Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California prisoner Edward G. Ontiveros appeals 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.
FILED
JAN 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-17739 2
Ontiveros contends that there was not sufficient evidence to support the
finding that he was guilty of violating California Code of Regulations, title 15,
section 3144(b)(1), and forging an officer’s signature on legal mail, resulting in the
loss of sentence credits. Contrary to Ontiveros’s contention, the record reflects that
the state court’s determination that the discipline officer’s finding was supported
by some evidence was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly
established Federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Superintendent v. Hill, 472
U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985).
We construe appellant’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.

-- 2 of 2 --