Don Carlos Brown v. KENNETH CLARK, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DON CARLOS BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KENNETH CLARK, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-56158
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-05567-VBF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Don Carlos Brown 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.
Brown contends that the trial court’s decision to allow a gang expert to
FILED
JUL 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-56158 2
testify that he had heard that Brown had been beaten up by a rival gang member a
month before the shooting violated Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
We agree with the district court that Brown is not entitled to federal habeas relief
because any error in admitting the challenged testimony was harmless. See
Jackson v. Brown, 513 F.3d 1057, 1084-85 (9th Cir. 2008) (Confrontation Clause
violation does not support federal habeas relief absent substantial and injurious
effect on the jury’s verdict.).
We construe Brown’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); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --