T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e J a m e s C . M a ha n, U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** D i s tr i c tof

N e va da , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DA RR EL L T YRON E NOBLE , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. G. J . GI UR B I NO , R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 55004 D. C . No . C V- 0 6 - 0 1 6 2 5 - WQH ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia W i l l i a m Q . H a y e s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J une 10, 2010 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: T R O T T and W . F L E T C H E R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and M A H A N , D i stri ct Judg e. ** P e t i t i one rN obl e w a s c onvi c t e d by aj ury i n C a l i f orni ai n 2002 of

s e r i ous cr i m es ar i si ng fr om an aut om ob i l e a cc i dent . H i s c on vi ct i on w as af fi rm ed on di re ct appeal . H e then u nsucce ss ful l y s ou gh tre l i ef i n st at e c ou rtby w ayof habeas



# FI LED JU N 21 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

c o rp u s , c o n te n d in g th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l’s p e r f o rm a n c e w a s p r e

ju d ic ia llyd e f

ic ie n t, a s de f i ne d by S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668 ( 1984) . A tthe e nd of the day, tho se court s c on cl ud ed, i nt eral i a, thatN ob l e di d n otdem on stra t e pre j ud i ce fr om hi s a tt orney’ s behavi or. T hi s appe a l c om e s t o us f r om ourdi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s c onc l us i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d ) a n d (e ) th at th e s tate co u rts h ad re as o n ab ly fo u n d (1 ) th at N o b le’s a tt orne y ha d pe r f

orm e d c om pe t e nt l y , a nd ( 2) tha tthe r e w a s no s how i ng of prej ud i ce . W e a ff i rm the j ud gm entof the di stri ctcourtbecause w e c on clud e a ft er e xa m i ni ng the r e c or d tha tthe s t a t e c ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i on of “ no pr e j udi c e ” a r i s i ng f r o m h is a tto rn e y ’s d is p u te d d e c is io n s w a s ( 1 ) le g a llys o u n d , a n d ( 2 ) ar e a s o n ab le d e te rm in a tio n o f

th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d . A t tr ia l E v a n s ’ te s tim o n y u n d e ro a th w h en as k ed if sh e “m ig h t h av e g rab b ed th e [ stee rin g ] w h ee l” w as , “ If I d id , I ca n ’t re m em ber i t . ” T hi s t es t i m on y r enders her l ett ersuspi ci ou s, and i t s use as evi dence m i ghtw e l l ha ve da m a ge d N obl e ’ s c aus e . I n a ddi t i on, the othe re vi de nc e , i nc l udi ng N ob l e’ s e l evat ed bl oo d al coho l l evel and h i s post -a cc i dentcond uct , prov i des in d e p e n d e n t s u p p o rt f

o rth e ju ry ’s g u iltyv e r d ic t. G i ve n a l l of

the e vi de nc e i ntr oduc e d a ttr i a l , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on not t o c onduc ta n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng w a s nota n abus e of di s c r e t i on.3

AF F I R ME D.