Opinion
No. 08-15272.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
March 31, 2010.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01501-PMPGWF.
Before: FARRIS, HALL, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Nevada state prisoner Aron Jonz appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.
Jonz contends that his counsel's failure to fully explain to him the elements of the charged offense and to provide him with copies of discovery and the presentence report rendered his Alford plea involuntary. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). We affirm the district court because Jonz has not demonstrated that the Nevada state courts' denial of relief was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court, or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686-87, 691-93 (1984).
To the extent Jonz raises an uncertified issue in his briefs, we construe his arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.