Seum Sisavath v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; KEN CLARK, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable James G. Carr, Senior District Judge for the U.S.**
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEUM SISAVATH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
KEN CLARK, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 09-15592
D.C. No. 1:06-cv-01413-VRW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Vaughn R. Walker, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 1, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and CARR, Senior District
Judge.**
Seum Sisavath appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his
petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm.
FILED
MAR 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Sisavath contends that the state appellate court erred in holding that
statements admitted during his trial in violation of the Confrontation Clause were
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18
(1967). We agree with the district court, for the reasons described in greater detail
in that court’s order, that the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an
unreasonable application of clearly established law as determined by the United
States Supreme Court, nor was it based upon an unreasonable determination of the
facts, in view of the other evidence supporting Sisavath’s conviction. Because
Sisavath failed to satisfy the standard set by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), his petition was
properly denied.
Sisavath moves to expand the certificate of appealability to include two
issues not certified by the district court. We decline to expand the COA to include
these issues because Sisavath has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right” as to those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 9th Cir. R.
22-1(e). Sisavath’s motion, filed on June 7, 2010, is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --