Pierce

Pierce v. Galaza

Good Law
110 F. App'x 843
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 14, 2004No. 03-16965; D.C. No. CV-02-00565-WBS/GGHCalifornia214 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Samuel Garrett Pierce, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction after a court trial, for assault with a semiautomatic firearm, assault with a firearm, willful discharge of a firearm in a grossly negligent manner likely to cause injury or death, and willful discharge of a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , we review de novo the district court’s denial of Pierce’s petition, Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

I

For the reasons stated by the district court, we hold that Pierce was not denied effective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-90 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

II

We recognize that Pierce has raised uncertified issues in his opening brief, which we construe as a motion to expand the Certificate of Appealability. So considered, we deny the motion. Ninth 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 may not be cited…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.