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:T4f8,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Linna Ye appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying her habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm. Ye contends that her trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to investigate, or introduce evidence as to, telephone records that were introduced by the government. The state court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), nor an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101-03 , 131 S.Ct. 770 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). We treat Ye’s additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate of appeal-ability and deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T52a,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Linna Ye appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying her habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

Ye contends that her trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to investigate, or introduce evidence as to, telephone records that were introduced by the government. The state court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), nor an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101-03 , 131 S.Ct. 770 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

We treat Ye’s additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate of appeal-ability and deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.