723 Fed.Appx. 451 (9th Cir. 2018), 16-56783, James v. Soto
|Citation:||723 Fed.Appx. 451|
|Party Name:||Taumu JAMES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. SOTO, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Alex Coolman, Law Office of Alex Coolman, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant Scott Alan Taryle, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee|
|Judge Panel:||Before: W. FLETCHER and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and MOSKOWITZ, Chief District Judge.|
|Case Date:||April 25, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted March 9, 2018 [*] Pasadena, California
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles, Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-07523-SVW-SP
Alex Coolman, Law Office of Alex Coolman, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant
Scott Alan Taryle, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
Before: W. FLETCHER and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and MOSKOWITZ,[**] Chief District Judge.
The memorandum disposition filed on March 14, 2018, and reported at 2018 WL 1311823, is hereby amended. The superseding amended memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.
The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judges Fletcher and Owens voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Chief District Judge Moskowitz so recommends.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.
The petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED.
No further petitions for panel rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be entertained.
Taumu James appeals from the district courts denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. James challenges his conviction— for six counts of home-invasion robbery— on the grounds that the government introduced eyewitness identification evidence that was so irrelevant and prejudicial as to violate due process. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
1. The California Court of Appeal did not rely on an unreasonable determination of fact in its 2012 decision on direct appeal, and so 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) bars habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 380, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 176...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP