Case ID: f-appx_389/html/0603-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Larry DIXON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-17110.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 22, 2010.
    Amitai Schwartz, Law Offices of Amitai Schwartz, Emeryville, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Larry Dixon, pro se.
    Juliet Haley, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appel-lee.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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 Larry Dixon 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.

Dixon contends that his due process rights were violated under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), when the prosecutor failed to disclose the extent of a favorable arrangement it made with a key prosecution witness. The state court determined that the existence of such an arrangement, beyond what was disclosed, was speculative. This was neither an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Phillips v. Woodford, 267 F.3d 966, 987 (9th Cir.2001).

We further reject Dixon’s request that this case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing concerning this claim. See Phillips, 267 F.3d at 987.

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