22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4d8,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Tony Jackie Hernandez 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. Hernandez contends that his trial counsel provided him with ineffective assistance by (1) failing to cite to and argue for the applicability of a section of the California Vehicle Code, and (2) failing to question the arresting officers concerning their observations as to the number of times Hernandez’s stoplamp flickered. We conclude that the state court’s rejection of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We construe Hernandez’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. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T50a,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Tony Jackie Hernandez 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.

Hernandez contends that his trial counsel provided him with ineffective assistance by (1) failing to cite to and argue for the applicability of a section of the California Vehicle Code, and (2) failing to question the arresting officers concerning their observations as to the number of times Hernandez’s stoplamp flickered. We conclude that the state court’s rejection of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

We construe Hernandez’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.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.