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:T461,MEMORANDUM California prisoner Jose Andrew Nava appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258 , and we affirm. Nava contends that the evidence introduced at his trial was insufficient to support the jury’s true finding on a criminal street gang enhancement. The record reflects that the California appellate court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law; nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 , 624 n. 10, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 , 927 P.2d 713 (1996). We construe Nava’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. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T493,

MEMORANDUM

California prisoner Jose Andrew Nava appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258 , and we affirm.

Nava contends that the evidence introduced at his trial was insufficient to support the jury’s true finding on a criminal street gang enhancement. The record reflects that the California appellate court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law; nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 , 624 n. 10, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 , 927 P.2d 713 (1996).

We construe Nava’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.

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