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:T4b5,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Don Carlos Brown 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. Brown contends that the trial court’s decision to allow a gang expert to testify that he had heard that Brown had been beaten up by a rival gang member a month before the shooting violated Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). We agree with the district court- that Brown is not entitled to federal habeas relief because any error in admitting the challenged testimony was harmless. See Jackson v. Brown, 513 F.3d 1057, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2008) (Confrontation Clause violation does not support federal habeas relief absent substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s verdict.). We construe Brown’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4e7,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Don Carlos Brown 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.

Brown contends that the trial court’s decision to allow a gang expert to testify that he had heard that Brown had been beaten up by a rival gang member a month before the shooting violated Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). We agree with the district court- that Brown is not entitled to federal habeas relief because any error in admitting the challenged testimony was harmless. See Jackson v. Brown, 513 F.3d 1057, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2008) (Confrontation Clause violation does not support federal habeas relief absent substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s verdict.).

We construe Brown’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.