Andy O. Trotter v. R. LOPEZ, 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. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDY O. TROTTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
R. LOPEZ, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-17511
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00996-GEB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Andy O. Trotter appeals pro se 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.
Trotter contends that three evidentiary rulings by the state trial court
FILED
SEP 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17511 2
violated his constitutional rights. Trotter has not shown that the trial court’s
rulings rendered his trial fundamentally unfair or denied him a meaningful
opportunity to present a complete defense. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v.
McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 75 (1991); Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986).
Trotter next contends that the gang sentencing enhancements that he
received under Cal. Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1) were not supported by sufficient
evidence. This claim fails because the state court’s determination that there was
sufficient evidence to support the gang enhancements was not contrary to, or an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d)(1); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
Trotter finally contends that his trial counsel was constitutionally deficient
for failing to object to, and request admonition for, the prosecutor’s alleged
misconduct while examining witnesses and making closing arguments. The state
court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable
application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 788 (2011).
We construe Trotter’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 --