Texte intégral
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).
EOH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH GIDEON HANCOCK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA; BEN CURRY,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 07-17060
D.C. No. CV-02-02413-FCD
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAR 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
EOH/Research 07-17060 2
California state prisoner Joseph Gideon Hancock appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Hancock contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his
conviction for assault with a firearm. The record reflects that the state court’s
rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see
also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979).
Hancock next contends that the jury instructions improperly lowered the
prosecution’s burden of proof. The “context of the overall charge” does not
support Hancock’s contention. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146-47 (1973).
The state court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1).
Hancock’s motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. See
9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.
1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --