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:T4b6,MEMORANDUM Petitioner-Appellant Maurice Vasquez appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. We assume for purposes of argument, just as the California Court of Appeal did, that Vasquez’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated. Nonetheless, any error was harmless because the prosecutor’s questions did not have a “ ‘substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’ ” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 631 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief. We decline to expand the certifícate of appealability to include Vasquez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because Vasquez failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right based on his trial counsel’s performance. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2). AFFIRMED; MOTION TO EXPAND COA DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4e8,

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-Appellant Maurice Vasquez appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

We assume for purposes of argument, just as the California Court of Appeal did, that Vasquez’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated. Nonetheless, any error was harmless because the prosecutor’s questions did not have a “ ‘substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’ ” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 631 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief.

We decline to expand the certifícate of appealability to include Vasquez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because Vasquez failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right based on his trial counsel’s performance. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2).

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO EXPAND COA DENIED.

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