Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0555-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elwin TAYLOR, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. L. CHRONES, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 06-55019.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 6, 2007.
    
    Filed Aug. 17, 2007.
    Arthur H. Weed, Esq., Santa Barbara, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Elwin Taylor, Jr., Delano, CA, pro se.
    Lawrence M. Daniels, Esq., Laura Jane Hartquist, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for R esp on d ent-App ell ee.
    
      Before: D.W. NELSON, KOZINSKI, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Elwin Taylor appeals the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Assuming, without deciding, that trial counsel provided deficient representation when he failed to interview Miste Taylor, we affirm because appellant has not demonstrated prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Given the substantial inconsistencies between Miste’s proposed testimony and other evidence of record, her close family ties to Taylor, the fact that her testimony would have been cumulative, and the strength of the government’s case, there is no “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Indeed, given the deference due to state court adjudications under AEDPA, even if this were a closer question, we would be compelled to affirm the district court. Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 994 (9th Cir.2003). Because no other issue has been certified for appeal, we do not address Taylor’s other contention. Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir.2002).

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