Case ID: f-appx_370/html/0781-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harold Eugene LEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian HAWS, Respondent.
    No. 07-56040.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 8, 2010.
    Brad Douglas Levenson, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Harold Eugene Lee, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
    Peter Quon, Jr., Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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 Harold Eugene Lee appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ha-beas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Lee contends that the trial court violated his due process and confrontation rights by denying his request for a two-day continuance so that a defense witness who was on vacation could testify at trial. The district court correctly determined that the California Court of Appeal’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Morns v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983); Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589-91, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964).

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