Abe Williams, Jr. v. Raythel Fisher

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABE WILLIAMS, Jr., No. 15-15202
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02315-TJH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RAYTHEL FISHER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Abe Williams, Jr., 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. We review de novo the district court’s
decision denying a habeas petition, see Murdaugh v. Ryan, 724 F.3d 1104, 1113
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.
Williams first contends that the district court erred by reviewing his claim
under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”).
Although Williams’ conviction became final before AEDPA’s enactment, the
district court properly applied AEDPA because Williams filed his habeas petition
after the statute’s effective date. See Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 207
(2003). In addition, because Williams has not shown that his punishment has been
increased, he has not demonstrated an ex post facto violation. See Dobbert v.
Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293-94 (1977).
Williams next argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to
hold an evidentiary hearing regarding his claim that he is entitled to additional
custody credits. The district court did not abuse its discretion because the record
shows that Williams is not entitled to relief on this claim. See Schriro v.
Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007).
We treat Williams’ additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-
1(e); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 648 (2012); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d
1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-15202