
    Steven Louis HIRATA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gail LEWIS, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 06-55436.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed March 10, 2010.
    Steven Louis Hirata, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
    Ana R. Duarte, Esq., AGCA-Office of The California Attorney General, Los An-geles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SKOPIL, LEAVY, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. .
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Steven Louis Hirata appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2258, and we affirm.

Hirata contends that the trial court violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by admitting into evidence prior uncharged conduct, tending to show propensity to commit the charged offenses. We conclude that 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 United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 75 n. 5, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Alberni v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 863-7 (9th Cir.2006).

Hirata also contends that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by eliciting profile evidence and improper expert testimony, and that the trial court compounded that misconduct by admitting this evidence in violation of his due process rights. We conclude that the state court’s decision rejecting this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181-3,106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986); Briceno v. Scribner, 555 F.3d 1069, 1077-8 (9th Cir.2009); Drayden v. White, 232 F.3d 704, 713-4 (9th Cir.2000).

To the extent Hirata raises uncertified issues in his briefs, we construe those contentions as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiwala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-5 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     