Maurice V. Vasquez v. TOM FELKER, Warden, High Desert State Prison

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAURICE V. VASQUEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TOM FELKER, Warden, High Desert
State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-17722
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-05051-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, REINHARDT, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant Maurice Vasquez appeals the district court’s denial of
FILED
FEB 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253, and we affirm.
We assume for purposes of argument, just as the California Court of Appeal
did, that Vasquez’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated. Nonetheless, any
error was harmless because the prosecutor’s questions did not have a “‘substantial
and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’” Brecht v.
Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 631 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328
U.S. 750, 776 (1946)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of habeas
relief.
We decline to expand the certificate of appealability to include Vasquez’s
ineffective assistance of counsel claim because Vasquez failed to make a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right based on his trial
counsel’s performance. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO EXPAND COA DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --