Gene Hazzard, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Joseph D. Howard; Municipal Court of California in Alamedacounty, Oakland-emeryville-piedmont Judicialdistrict; Alameda County Sheriff'sdepartment, Defendants-appellees, 145 F.3d 1338 (9th Cir. 1998)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Gene Hazzard appeals pro se the judgment for defendant Joe Howard after a jury trial in Hazzard's 42 U.S.C. § 1982 action for damages. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not plainly err when it characterized Hazzard's counsel's cross-examination of Howard as repetitive. See Shad v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 799 F.2d 525, 531 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that isolated comment by judge is not reversible error unless it discloses actual bias); see also United States v. Springer, 51 F.3d 861, 864 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that allegations of judicial misconduct are reviewed for plain error when party fails to object at trial).

Further, our review of the record indicates that substantial evidence supported the jury's special verdict that race was not a factor in Howard's decision not to extend Hazzard's lease. See Murray v. Laborers Union Local No. 324, 55 F.3d 1445, 1452 (9th Cir. 1995).

Because Hazzard failed to designate as necessary to his appeal those portions of the trial transcript relevant to his assignment of error as to jury instructions and rebuttal evidence, we cannot determine, and thus do not consider, those issues. See Fed.R.App .P. 10(b) (1); United States v. Alerta, 96 F.3d 1230, 1233 (9th Cir. 1996).

Finally, we may not consider, because it is raised for the first time on appeal, Hazzard's claim that the jury was improperly selected. See 28 U.S.C. § 1867(c) -(e).

AFFIRMED.