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 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 DA NI EL ALLE N BLUNT, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. J A M E S A . Y A T E S , W a r de n; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF T HE ST ATE OF C AL I F ORNI A, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15628 D. C. No . 1 : 0 6 - c v - 0 0 4 6 3 - I EG 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 I rm aE . G onz a l e z , C hi e f J udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r14, 2010 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an d T H O M A S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner D ani el A l l en B l un tappeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c 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. 

# FI LED JAN 07 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 15628 2 B lu n t co n ten d s th at th er e is in su ff icien t ev id en ce to su p p o rt th e ju ry ’s ve r di c t s c onvi c t i ng hi m of bur gl a rya nd m ur de r . T he C a l i f orni ac ourt ’ s c onc l us i on tha tthe r e w a s s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o a l l ow ar e a s onabl e tr i e rof f a c tt o f i nd B l unt g u iltyb e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t w a s n o t c o n tr a ryto , o ra n u n r e a s o n ab le appl i ca t i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed S up re m e C ou rtl aw , and w as no tan u n r e a s o n ab le d e te rm in a tio n o f th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e . See 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ; see a l

so J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . B lu n t a ls o c o n te n d s th a t h e r e c e iv e d in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e b e c au s e h is c ouns e l f a i l e d t o obj e c tt o the a dm i s s i on of aw i tne s s ’ pr e tr i a l s t a t e m e nton the basi s thati tw as i nv ol un t ar i l y c oerc ed. T he C al i forni a c ou rt ’ s c on cl usi on that B lu n t d id n o t r e c e iv e in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l b e c au s e s u c h ac h a lle n g e to the w i tness ’ st at em entw ou l d h ave been frui t l es s w as no tcontraryt o, or an 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 S upr e m e C ourtl a w , a nd w a s not a n u n r e a s o n ab le d e te rm in a tio n o f th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e . See 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ; s e e al

s o Str i c kland v . W

as hi ngton , 46 6 U . S . 66 8, 68 7-88 (198 4). B l untf urthe rc ont e nds tha tthe pr os e c ut ore nga ge d i n m i s c onduc tby in tr o d u c in g f

a ls e e v id e n c e . H o w e v e r , it w a s n o t m is c o n d u c t f o rth e p r o s e c u to rto i ntr oduc e the w i tne s s ’ pr i ori nc ons i s t e nts t a t e m e ntbe c aus e i tw a s unc l e a rw hi c h of the w i tne s s ’ ve r s i ons of the e ve nt s w a s true a nd the r e f or e the pr os e c ut ordi d not09- 15628 3 k n o w in g lyu s e f

a ls e e v id e n c e . See U

ni ted Stat es v. B ag ley , 473 U . S . 667, 678 (198 5). T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng B l unt ’ s r e que s tf or a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g . Se e P e r ezv . R o s a r io , 4 5 9 F .3 d 9 4 3 , 9 5 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . AF F I RME D.