Mendoza v. Keane, 051209 FED2, 06-5197-pr
|Party Name:||Roberto Mendoza, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John Keane, Respondent-Appellee,|
|Attorney:||FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT: LISA NAPOLI, Of Counsel (Lynn W.L. Fahey, on the brief), Appellate Advocates, New York, New York. FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLEE: JOHNNETTE TRAILL, Assistant District Attorney, Of Counsel (John M. Castellano, Emil Bricker, Assistant District Attorneys, Of Counsel, on the brief)...|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: HON. DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, HON. ROSEMARY S. POOLER, HON. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||May 12, 2009|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: "(SUMMARY ORDER)." UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV), THE PARTY CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 12th day of May, two thousand nine.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Ross, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Petitioner-Appellant Roberto Mendoza appeals from an October 23, 2006 order entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mendoza was convicted in Queens County, New York, of Second Degree Murder and related offenses. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
This Court reviews a district court's legal conclusions in denying a habeas corpus petition de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Drake v. Portuondo, 553 F.3d 230, 239 (2d Cir. 2009). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Mendoza is entitled to habeas corpus relief only if the State court's decision "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, " 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding, " 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Factual issues determined by the State court are presumed to be correct and Mendoza bears the burden of rebutting this presumption by...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP