Endsley

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Mark Curtis Endsley appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

As an initial matter, we note that the district court certified one issue on appeal: whether Endsley’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by the introduction against him at trial of accomplice Theresa Ward’s out-of-court statements. The scope of review in habeas cases under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is limited to those issues specified in the Certificate of Appealability (“COA”). Nardi v. Stewart, 354 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir.2004). However, we may expand the issues certified for appeal where the petitioner’s assertion of a claim makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. at 1138 . Endsley has not made such a showing. Thus, to the extent that Endsley raises issues that fall outside the scope of the COA, we will not consider them here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c); 9th Cir. R. 22-1.

The California Court of Appeal determined on direct appeal that the circumstances surrounding Ward’s statements provided…