Derek Ancrum v. Gary Swarthout , 608 F. App'x 520 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEREK K. ANCRUM, No. 13-55827
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02686-WQH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Derek K. Ancrum appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s denial
of a habeas corpus petition, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir.
*
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. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2011), and we affirm.
Ancrum contends that the trial court violated his Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights by failing to discharge a juror who committed misconduct by
communicating with a government witness. This contention fails. Under any
standard of review, the record reflects that there was no reasonable probability that
the communication influenced the verdict. See Caliendo v. Warden of California
Men’s Colony, 365 F.3d 691, 697 (9th Cir. 2004).
Ancrum next contends that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective
for failing to introduce, challenge, and investigate certain evidence. In light of
the overwhelming evidence of guilt, we conclude that the state court’s rejection of
this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v.
Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011).
Ancrum’s motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. See
9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-55827