N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT B R ANDON EUGENE B ALES, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. C LARENC E W . DUPNIK; ATTOR NEY GENER AL OF THE STATE OF AR IZONA; C HARLES L. R Y AN, R

e sponde n t s - Appe lle e s . No. 14-16067 D.C . No. 4:12-c v-00483-B PV
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na B e rnardo P. Ve la sc o, M a g istra te Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 10, 2016 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN, FISHER , a

nd TALLM A

N, C irc uit Judge s. B randon Euge ne B a le s a

p pe a ls the de nia l of fe de ra l ha be a s re lie f a fte r he
c ha lle nge d his Ariz ona

sta te c onvic t ion for driving unde r the influe n c e . The 

# FIL ED FEB 12 2016 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

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).distric t c o urt he ld tha t B a le s’ s ha

be a s a ppe a l wa s ba

rre d by Stone

v . Pow e l l , 428 U.S. 465 (1976). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. B a le s c onte nds tha

t his Fourth Ame ndm e nt rights were viola te d whe n his blood wa s dra

wn pursua

nt to Ariz ona ’ s “ im

plie d c onse nt” sta

tute , Ariz . R e v. Stat. Ann. § 28–1321 (2015). Howe ve r, Stone v . Pow e ll dire c ts tha

t “ whe re the State ha s provide d a

n opportunity

for full a nd fa ir litiga

tion of a Fourth Am e ndm e nt
c la im , a sta te prisone r m ay

not be grante d fe de ra l ha be a s c orpus re l ie f on the ground tha

t e vide nc e obta ine d

in a n unc onstitutiona

l se arc h or se iz ure wa s introduc e d at his trial.” Stone , 428 U.S. a t 494 (footnote

c a ll num be r om itte d). 1 B a le s a ppe a rs to a rgue tha t he did not re c e ive a

“ full a nd fa ir” tria l be c a

use the sta te c o urt m isc onstrue d

the fa c ts a

nd m isa pplie d c le arly e sta

blishe d fe de ra l la

w. B ut the se argum e nts, likea ll of the argum e n ts in B a le s’ s ope ning brie f, go to whe the r his Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im wa s wrongly

de c ide d, not whe the r the he aring itse lf wa s fa ir. Se e id. at 482. In this c a se , B a le s ha d a full e vide ntia ry he aring on his suppre ssion m otion, a s we ll a s a n a p pe a l to the supe rior c ourt a nd a n opportunity

for furthe r a

ppe lla te re vie w. Thus, thedistric t c ourt prope rly rule d tha t B a le s ha d the opportunity for a full a nd fa ir he aring on his Fourth Am e ndm e nt

1 W e re c e ntly

c onfirm e d tha

t Stone survive d e na c tm e nt of the Antite rrorism & Effe c tive De at

h Pe na l ty Ac t (AEDPA). N

e w man v . W

e ngle r , 790 F.3d 876, 879–81 (9th C ir. 2015).c la im
.

Fina lly , in his rep ly

B a le s a rgue s for a

ne we x c e p tion to the Stone doc trine that would a llow ha

be a s re v ie w of Fourth Am e ndm e n t issue s tha t a ffe c t a la rge num be r of pe ople or c la im s. He provide s no pe rsua sive re a s on to support this
a lle ge d e x c e ption, howe ve r, and we de c line to c re ate suc h a rule
. Stone is c le ar: W e c annot re c onside r the m e rits of B a le s’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im , so fe de ra l ha be a s re lie f is una

v a ila ble
. AFFIRM E D
.