N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GER ARDO PREC IADO, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. W ILLIAM M U

NEZ, W arde n, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 18-55326 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-01886-FM O-JDE
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Fe rnando M . Olguin, District Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 9, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R AW LINSON a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R AKOFF, ** Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r Ge rardo Pre c ia do (Pe titione r) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition. 

# FIL ED OCT 10 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Je d S. R akoff, Se n ior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa t ion.W e re vie w d e nov o the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of the pe tition a nd its findings of fa c t for c le ar e rror. Se e Rodne y v . Filson , 916 F.3d 1254, 1258 (9th C ir. 2019). As he re , sta

te c ourt de c isions issue d without a n e xpla nat ion a re pre sum e d
a djudic ate d on them e rits. Se e K e r nan v . Hinojosa , 136 S. C t. 1603, 1606 (2016). W e m a y grant re lie f pursua

nt to Se c tion 2254(d) of the Antite rrorism and Effe c t ive De ath Pe na l t

y Ac t of 1996 (AEDPA) only whe n a pe titione r de m onstra

te s e ithe r that “ t

he re wa s no re a sona

ble ba sis” for the sta

te c ourt’ s
sum m ary de nia l, or tha

t the sta te c ourt’ s de te rm i nation of thefa c t s wa s “ not m e re ly wrong, but obje c tive ly unre a sona ble .” Sande rs v . C

ulle n , 873 F.3d 778, 794-95 (9th C ir. 2017), c e rt. de nie d sub nom. Sanders v . Dav i s , 139 S. C t. 798 (2019) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). W e re je c t Pe titione r’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt
unre a s ona

bly de te rm ine d the fa c ts in sum m arily de ny ing Pe t itione r’ s ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im
. Se e W ood v . Alle n , 558 U.S. 290, 301 (2010) (noting that a sta te c ourt’ s fa c tua l de te rm ination is not unre a sona ble “ m e re ly

be c a use ” a diffe re nt c onc lusion c ould ha v e be e n re a c he d by

the fe de ra l ha

be a s c ourt). In
a ddition, on fe de ra l ha

be a s re v ie w, our e xam ination of c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e is

“ doubly de fe re ntia l.” W

h itev . Ry an , 895 F.3d 641, 666 (9th C ir. 2018). The C a lifornia Supre m e C o urt ha d be fore it thee ntire re c ord of the tria l a nd post-trial
2proc e e dings, inc l u ding de c la rations from

witne s se s tha

t Pe titione r ide ntifie d a s
e xc ulpa tory . Ac c ordingly , the distric t c o urt c o m m itte d no e rror in de ny ing, without a n e vide ntia

ry he aring, Pe titione r’ s c la im s of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of
c ounse l by

finding tha

t the sta t e c ourt ruling wa s not a

n unre a s ona

ble de te rm i nation of thefa c t s. S e e C ulle n v . Pinholster , 563 U.S. 170, 183 (2011) (“ [W ] he n the sta

te -c ourt re c ord pre c lude s ha b e a s re l ie f unde r the lim ita t ions of § 2254(d), a

distric t c ourt is not re quire d to hold a n e v ide ntia

ry he aring.” ) (c ita

tion
and inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d); se ealso H

i bble r v . Be ne de t ti , 693 F.3d 1140, 1147 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ A sta te c ourt’ s de c ision not to hold a n e vide ntia

ry he aring doe s not re n de r its fa c t-finding proc e ss unre a sona b le so long a s the sta

te
c ourt c ould ha

ve re a sona

bly c onc lude d tha

t the e v ide nc e a lre a dy

a d duc e d wa s suffic i e nt to re solve the fa c t ua l que stion. . . .” ) (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion
m arks om itte d). Fina lly , Pe t itione r fa ile d to ide ntify any Unite d State s Supre m e C ourt a uthority pre c luding sum

m ary de n ia l by the C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt whe n the full re c ord is be fore the sta t e c ourt. Se eHe dlund v . Ry an , 854 F.3d 557, 565- 66 (9th C ir. 2017), a s ame nde d (e xpla ining tha

t ha be a s re lie f is una

va i la ble if

“ Supre m e C ourt c a se s give no c le ar answe r to the que stion pre se nte d” ). AFFIRM E D.

3