Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03351/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03351-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Ruezga
Petitioner
James A. Yates
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID RUEZGA,

Petitioner,

 v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-03351 CRB

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The Court hereby GRANTS a certificate of appealability as to the following questions

of law: 

(1) whether the California court’s order was contrary to, or an unreasonable

application of, United States Supreme Court precedent in holding that trial counsel’s failure

to request an instruction on antecedent threats was not prejudicial, 

(2) whether the California court’s order was contrary to, or an unreasonable

application of, United States Supreme Court precedent in holding that trial counsel’s opening

the door to the admission of gang evidence was not prejudicial, 

(3) whether the California court’s order was contrary to, or an unreasonable

application of, United States Supreme Court precedent in holding that trial counsel’s failure

to object to the admission of a weapon was not prejudicial,

Case 3:06-cv-03351-CRB Document 42 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2006\3351\certificate of appealability.wpd 2

(4) whether the California court’s order was contrary to, or an unreasonable

application of, United States Supreme Court precedent in holding that trial counsel’s failure

to introduce the testimony of Fernando Ruezga about a prior attack was not prejudicial,

(5) whether the California court’s order was contrary to, or an unreasonable

application of, United States Supreme Court precedent in rejecting petitioner’s cumulative

ineffective assistance of counsel claim,

(6) whether the California court’s order was contrary to, or an unreasonable

application of, United States Supreme Court precedent in rejecting petitioner’s challenge to

the CALJIC No. 5.55 instruction,

(7) whether the California court’s order was contrary to, or an unreasonable

application of, United States Supreme Court precedent in rejecting petitioner’s challenge to

the CALJIC No. 8.66.1 instruction, and

(8) whether the California court’s order was contrary to, or an unreasonable

application of, United States Supreme Court precedent in rejecting petitioner’s Blakely

challenge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03351-CRB Document 42 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 2