Kevin Rikard v. Anthony Hedgpeth , 473 F. App'x 610 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAY 21 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    KEVIN GLEN RIKARD,                               No. 10-15123
    Petitioner - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01867-JKS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    James K. Singleton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 15, 2012 **
    Before:       CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Kevin Glen Rikard 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.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
    Rikard contends that his due process rights were violated because he was not
    permitted to allocute at sentencing. Contrary to Rikard’s contention, the state
    court’s decision rejecting this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable
    application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
    in Hill v. United States, 
    368 U.S. 424
    , 428 (1962). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see
    also Duhaime v. Ducharme, 
    200 F.3d 597
    , 600 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[B]ecause of the
    1996 AEDPA amendments, [this court] can no longer reverse a state court decision
    merely because that decision conflicts with Ninth Circuit precedent on a federal
    Constitutional issue.”).
    Rikard’s motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied because
    he has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” as to
    that additional claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also
    Mendez v. Small, 
    298 F.3d 1154
    , 1158 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A state court has the last
    word on the interpretation of state law.”).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                 10-15123
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-15123

Citation Numbers: 473 F. App'x 610

Judges: Canby, Graber, Smith

Filed Date: 5/21/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024