Case ID: f-appx_388/html/0685-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sababu Badili ROUNTREE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, Acting Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Robert A. Horel, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 08-55272.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 20, 2010.
    Keith H. Rutman, Law Offices of Keith H. Rutman, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    
      Sababu Badili Rountree, Calipatria, CA, pro se.
    Kyle Niki Shaffer, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    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

Sababu Badili Rountree 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.

Rountree contends that trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to order testing of the victim’s clothing for gunshot residue; (2) failing to obtain an expert witness to testify regarding the mental state of the key eyewitness to the shooting; and (3) failing to investigate the possibility of introducing experimental evidence regarding how long the hood of Rountree’s car, found near the crime scene, would have stayed warm given weather conditions on the night of the crime. The record indicates that the state court’s rejection of these claims was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Rountree further contends that the trial court violated his due process rights by admitting propensity evidence. As Roun-tree concedes in his reply brief, this contention is foreclosed by Alberni v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 863-67 (9th Cir.2006). See Mejia v. Garcia, 534 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th Cir.2008).

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