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:T517,MEMORANDUM ** California state prisoner Paul E. Lepkowski appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction for three counts of second degree robbery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. Lepkowski contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct when his law clerk allegedly coached a prosecution witness. We disagree. Even if the statements amounted to misconduct, Lepkowski failed to show that the misconduct “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” See Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986). Therefore, the state court’s adjudication was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of controlling federal law. See Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 979-82 (9th Cir.2000). To the extent that Lepkowski’s brief raises uncertified issues, we construe his arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. See Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam); 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T537,

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Paul E. Lepkowski appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction for three counts of second degree robbery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Lepkowski contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct when his law clerk allegedly coached a prosecution witness. We disagree. Even if the statements amounted to misconduct, Lepkowski failed to show that the misconduct “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” See Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986). Therefore, the state court’s adjudication was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of controlling federal law. See Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 979-82 (9th Cir.2000).

To the extent that Lepkowski’s brief raises uncertified issues, we construe his arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. See Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam); 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.