Charles Wang v. Kamala Harris

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES WANG,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KAMALA HARRIS,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 13-16009
D.C. No. 4:10-cv-01453-PJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Charles Wang 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. We review de novo a district court’s denial of
FILED
JUL 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

a habeas petition, see Collins v. Runnels, 603 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2010), and
we affirm.
Wang contends that the 102-day delay in holding his parole revocation
hearing violated his right to due process. The state court’s rejection of this claim
was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal
law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488 (1972); United States v.
Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1259-61 (9th Cir. 2008). Wang received full credit
against his sentence for the time he spent in pre-revocation incarceration, and he
failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the delay. See Santana, 526 F.3d at
1260-61.
We construe Wang’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.
13-16009 2

-- 2 of 2 --