Kevin Rikard v. Anthony Hedgpeth

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2012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