Case ID: f-appx_175/html/0881-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sean David SENGENBERGER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ralph TOWNSEND, President, Idaho Board of Corrections, State of Idaho, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 04-35664.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 5, 2006.
    
    Decided April 10, 2006.
    Sean David Sengenberger, Idaho Correctional Center, Boise, ID, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    T. Paul Krueger, II, Deputy Attorney General Chief Capital Litigation Unit, L. Lamont Anderson, Esq., Office of the Idaho Attorney General, Boise, ID, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: HAWKINS, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sean David Sengenberger appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging the state’s determination that Sengenberger had violated conditions of his parole. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Sengenberger has numerous claims that his counsel was ineffective at his violation of parole hearing. We assume, without deciding, that Sengenberger has standing to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The district court correctly held that the Idaho court’s disposition of Sengenberger’s claims were neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691-92, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Sengenberger is unable to show any prejudice from his counsel’s alleged deficiencies. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691-92, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.