Jose Andrew Nava v. MICHAEL KNOWLES, Warden

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE ANDREW NAVA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL KNOWLES, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-55304
D.C. No. 5:07-cv-00096-PA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
California prisoner Jose Andrew Nava 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
OCT 27 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-55304 2
Nava contends that the evidence introduced at his trial was insufficient to
support the jury’s true finding on a criminal street gang enhancement. The record
reflects that the California appellate court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary
to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law; nor was it based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal. 4th 605, 624 n.10
(1996).
We construe Nava’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 --