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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 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 S OU NT HO NE VI E T KA T E KE O, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. T . F E L K E R , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 16642 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 2 7 7 6 - J AM 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 E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn A . M e nde z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B e f o r e : O ’S C A N N L A I N , T A L L M A N , a n d B E A , C ir c u it J u d g e s . C a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one rS ounthone V i e tK a t e ke o appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f i rm. K a te k e o c o n te n d s th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt im p r o p e r lyd e n ie d h is m o tio n to 

# FI LED OC T 27 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 16642 2 s ubs t i tut e c ouns e l , m a de pur s ua ntt o P eopl e v . M arsden , 465 P . 2d 44 ( 1970) . T he st at e co u rtd eci si o n affi rm i n g th e tri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f K at ek eo ’ s M arsden m ot i on w a s n o t c o n tr a ryto , a n d d idn o t in v o lv e a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d f

e d e r a l la w . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ; Schel l v. W i t tek , 218 F . 3d 10 17 , 10 26 -28 (9th C i r. 20 00 ) ( en banc). K a t e ke o a l s o c ont e nds tha tthe tr i a l c ourtvi ol a t e d hi s r i ghtt o due pr oc e s s by d en yin g h is m o ti o n fo r a co n ti n u an ce . T h e r ec o rd re flec ts th at th e trial co u rt’s deni al of the cont i nu ance w as no t“ so arbi traryas t o v i ol at e due process . ” See U n g a rv . Sa r a

fite , 37 6 U . S . 57 5, 58 9 (19 64 ). F i na l l y , K a t e ke o c ont e nds tha tthe tr i a l c ourt ’ s e rr one ous a dm i s s i on of ev id en ce o f h is g an g af

fili atio n v io lated h is rig h t t o d u e p ro ce ss . T h e s tate co u rt’s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe e rr orw a s ha rm l e s s w a s notc ontr a ryt o, a nd di d noti nvol ve a n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of , c l e a r l ye s t abl i s he d f

e de r a l l a w , a s de t e rm i ne d by th e S u p r e m e C o u rt o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s . See B r e c ht v . A br aham s on , 507 U . S . 619, 636- 638 ( 1993) ( on c ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w , the que s t i on i s w he the rthe e rr orha d a

“ subst ant i al and i nj uri ou s e ff ec tor i nfl uence i n d et erm i ni ng the j ury’ s ver di ct ”) , se e al so Fryv. P l i ler , 551 U . S . 112, 121- 22 ( 2007) ( i n § 2254 pr oc e e di ngs , the prej ud i ci al i m pactof const i tut i on al error i n a st at e- courttri al m ustbe as se ss ed un der the B r e c h t st andard).09- 16642 3 W e c ons true K a t e ke o’ s a ddi t i ona l a r gum e nt s a s am ot i on t o e xpa nd the c e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility . S o c o n s tru e d , th e m o tio n is d e n ie d . See 9 th Ci r . R. 2 2 - 1 ( e ) ; s e e al

s o Hi i v ala v . W

ood , 19 5 F . 3d 10 98 , 11 04 -05 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( per curi am ). A FFI R M ED .