MEMORANDUM **

California prisoner Edward G. Ontiveros appeals 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.

Ontiveros contends that there was not sufficient evidence to support the finding that he was guilty of violating California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3144(b)(1), and forging an officer’s signature on legal mail, resulting in the loss of sentence credits. Contrary to Ontiveros’s contention, the record reflects that the state court’s determination that the discipline officer’s finding was supported by some evidence was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).

We construe appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.