
    Timothy Leon WHITFIELD, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Joe McGRATH, Warden, Respondent— Appellee.
    No. 05-15353.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2006.
    
    Filed July 26, 2006.
    Timothy Leon Whitfield, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
    Fay Arfa, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner — Appellant.
    Tami M. Warwick, Esq., John Thawley, Esq., AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent — Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and BERTELSMAN, Senior District Judge.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable William O. Bertelsman, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

1. Assuming arguendo that prosecutorial vouching occurred, it did not “so infect the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Davis v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 628, 644 (9th Cir.2004), as amended (citation and alteration omitted), cert. dismissed, — U.S. - — , 126 S.Ct. 410, 162 L.Ed.2d 933 (2005). Accordingly, the California Court of Appeal’s denial of this claim was not “contrary to, or ... an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court ...” Id. at 637.

2. We deny Whitfield’s request to expand the certificate of appealability (COA) because Whitfield has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 742 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (citation omitted).

AFFIRMED; the request to expand the COA to include the uncertified issues is DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     