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:T4e2,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Joshua Moses Hellon 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. Helton contends that the prosecutor engaged in vindictive prosecution by amending the criminal information to add a second strike prior to his trial. The state court’s rejection of Helton’s claim of vindictive prosecution was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 381-82 , 102 S.Ct. 2485 , 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982) (in cases involving pre-trial charging decisions, timing of decision atone is insufficient to create presumption of vindictiveness). Furthermore, in light of the prosecutor’s explanation for why she did not initially charge Helton’s second strike, the state court’s decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2). Helton’s motion to expand the record is denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T519,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Joshua Moses Hellon 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.

Helton contends that the prosecutor engaged in vindictive prosecution by amending the criminal information to add a second strike prior to his trial. The state court’s rejection of Helton’s claim of vindictive prosecution was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 381-82 , 102 S.Ct. 2485 , 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982) (in cases involving pre-trial charging decisions, timing of decision atone is insufficient to create presumption of vindictiveness).

Furthermore, in light of the prosecutor’s explanation for why she did not initially charge Helton’s second strike, the state court’s decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(2).

Helton’s motion to expand the record is denied.

AFFIRMED.

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