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 a nd 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 y c 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 NE L S ON WI L KI NS AL L E N, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. KE NN E T H Q UI NN , R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 35386 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 7 -cv -0 0 6 3 9 -R JB 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 orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R obe r tJ . B ry a n, S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d J une 10, 2010 ** S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: C A N B Y , C A L L A H A N an d IK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W i tho utdet erm i ni ng w hether thi s c l ai m i s proce du ra l l y barre d from fe dera l h ab e a s r e lie f

, w e d e n y th e c la im o n th e m e r its . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(b)(2). U nd er A E D P A , w e rev i ew th e l astreaso n ed d eci si o n b y a st at e co u rt , w h i ch i n th i s case 

# FI LED JU N 14 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSw a s th e W a s h in g to n C o u r t o f A p p e a ls ’s d e c is io n o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. See R ob i nson v. I g n a c io , 360 F . 3d 1044, 10 55 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). T he W as hi ng t on C ou rtof A pp ea l s’ s dec i si on thatA l l en’ s pl eaw as vo l un t ary w a s notc ontr a ry t o ora n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of f e de r a l l a w a s de t e r m i ne d by th e S u p r e m e C o u r t. See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . U n d e rS u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t, a pl eai s vol un t ary s o l on g as i ti s e nt er ed by on e f ul l y a w ar e of the di re ct consequences, and n oti nd uced by threa t s, m i sr epre se nt at i on , or i m prop er p r o m is e s . B rady v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 3 9 7 U .S . 7 4 2 , 7 5 5 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ; see Hi l l v. L o ckh a rt , 47 4 U . S . 52 , 56 (198 5). A l l en cl ai m s thathi s pl eadi d n otm ee tthi s s t andard because he w as gi ven an u nrea sonabl y s ho rtam ou ntof t i m e ( a f ew ho urs) i n w hi ch t o c ons i de rthe pl e a of

f e r , hi s c om m e nt s dur i ng hi s c ol l oquy de m ons tr a t e d tha the fe l tun der pres sure , and h i s c om m ent s m ade a ft erac ce pt ance of the pl eai nd i ca t ed thathe re grett ed hi s c ho i ce . B utno S up re m e C ou rtca se ho l ds thatcourt -i m po se d t i m e c ons tr a i nt s r e nde ra pl e a i nvol unt a ry pe rs e , a nd unde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s of thi s c as e, the W as hi ng t on C ou rtof A pp ea l s’ s det erm i nat i on thatA l l en’ s pl eaw as vol unt a ry notw i ths t a ndi ng the t i m e c ons tr a i nt s w a s nota n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on o f S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t. See 28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) ( 1) . M or e ove r , the W a s h in g to n C o u r t o f

A p p e a ls ’s d e te r m in a tio n th a t A lle n ’s c o llo q u y a m p ly de m ons tr a t e d hi s unde r s t a ndi ng of the di r e c tc ons e que nc e s of the pl e a a nd tha the ent er ed i nt o the pl eaw i tho uti m prop erthrea t s or m i sr epre se nt at i on s w as no tanu n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t. Se e id . A cco rd i n g l y, A lle n ’s p e titio n f

o rh ab e a s r e lie f

is d e n ie d . DE NI E D.