N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C HANH M INH DANG, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. G. J. GIUR

B INO, W arde n, C e ntine la Stat e Prison, Substitute d for Sy lvia Garc ia , Substitute d for Ac ting W arde n Stua rt R y a n, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 10-55706

D.C . No. 2:03-c v-08985-M M M
JW J
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 M argare t M
. M orrow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 2, 2014 Pa sa de na C a lifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, NOONAN, a

n d M U R GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. C ha nh M i nh Da

n g, a C a l ifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his writ of ha

be a s c orpus. He wa s se nte nc e d by a supe rior c ourt judgeof the s tat e of C a l ifornia

to nine ty -one y e ars in prison for offe nse s a rising out of his 

# F IL ED JAN 20 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.tre atm e nt of his girlfriend a nd he r supporte rs. His a c ts we re c rim ina l. The
se nte nc e wa s ga

rga ntua n. Our re vie w is ne ithe r of his c rim e s nor of his sente nc e , but of thec om

p e te nc e of his c ounse l. In this re vie w, our own c o m pe te nc e is sha rply c i rc um sc ribe d by

C ongre ss. W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l of ha be a s c orpus. C

av itt v
. C ulle n , 728 F.3d 1000, 1004 (9th C ir. 2013). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2253(a), a

nd we a ffirm
. 1. Ine ffe c tiv e Assistanc e of C

ounse l Inv e stigation C

laim
. C onc e ding tha

t 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d) a

p plie s to this c la im , Da

ng a lle ge s tha

t his tria l c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive for fa iling to inve stiga te an d pre se nt a

n e xc ulpa tory witne ss, Ha

nh Saranga

ba ny . W e c onc lude tha

t e ve n if Da

ng’ s tria l c ounse l ha d, in fa c t, be e n de fic ie nt, the re is no re a s ona

ble proba bility tha t, but for c ounse l’ s fa ilure , the re sult of the proc e e ding would ha

v e be e n diffe re nt. Se e Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). Da

ng ha s not de m onstra

te d tha t Sa ranga ba ny
— who wa s not pre s e nt whe n Da

ng c om m itte d the offe nse s for whic h he wa s c onvic te d— w ould have “ ra ise d a

re a sona ble doubt in jurors’ m inds a s to [Da ng’ s ] guilt,” Stanle

y v . Sc hriro , 598 F.3d 612, 619 (9th C ir. 2010), pa rtic ula rly give n the substa

ntia l te stim ony im plic at ing Da

ng. 22. Ine ffe c tiv e Assistanc e of C

ounse l Batson C laim. Dang re que sts a

n e v ide ntia ry he aring to de ve lop the fa c tua l ba sis of his
c la im tha t his trial c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive for fa iling to obje c t to theprose c utor’ s a lle ge d re m ova l of thre e Asia n ve nire pe rsons in viola

t ion of Batson v . K

e n tuc k y , 476 U.S. 79 (1986). For the re a sons be low, we c onc lude tha t the distric t

c o urt did not a buse its disc re tion in de c lining to order an e v ide ntia ry he aring. Se e Roy

v . Lampe rt , 465 F.3d 964, 968 (9th C ir. 2006). W e ne e d not a

n d do not de c ide Da

ng’ s a rgum e nt tha

t his ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e of c ounse l Batson c la im should bere vie we d de novo ra the r tha n unde r the d e fe re ntia l sta

n da rd of § 2254(d) be c a

use , e ve n if § 2254(d) doe s not a pply , a n e vide ntia ry he a ring is not wa

rrante d. First, Da

n g fa ile d to de v e lop the fa c tua l ba s is for the c la im

in sta te c ourt, a s § 2254(e )(2) re q uire s. Se e Stanle

y , 598 F.3d a

t 624. Ne ithe r Dang nor his c ounse l e ve r re que ste d the tra n sc ript of thevoir dire proc e e dings he ld in M arc h 1999 e ve n though they ha d se ve ra l opportunitie s to
m ake the re que st. The re c ord doe s not support Da ng’ s c la im

of dilige nc e . Se c ond, Da

ng ha s not m a de c olora

ble a lle g ations tha

t, if true , would e ntitle him to re lie f unde r Stric k

land
. Se e Stric k

land, 466 U.S. a

t 694; Insy

x ie ngmay v . Morgan , 403 F.3d 657, 670 (9th C ir. 2005). In his ha be a s pe tition file d with the C a lifornia Supre m e C o urt, Da

ng c la im e d tha

t the prose c utor struc k a ll thre e Asia n 3ve nire pe rsons from the pa ne l, a nd tha t his a ttorne y did not obje c t . Da

ng’ s ba re a lle gation a lone doe s not show a re a sona ble proba bility tha t his trial c ounse l would have pre v a ile d on a Batson/W he e le r obje c tion, a

t le a st unde r the sta

nda rd a pplie d by C a lifornia

c ourts a t the tim e . Se e C

a rre ra v . Ay e r

s , 699 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th C ir. 2012) (e n ba

nc ). AFFIRM E D.

4