N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SEAN ALAN O’ B RIEN,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt, v. LELAND M C EW EN, W arde n, C a lipa tria State Prison, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 20-16970 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-02472-M C E-C KD M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 7, 2023 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

n d B UM ATAY, C irc uit Judge s, a n d B ENNETT, ** Distric t Judge . Se an O’ B rie n wa s c onvic te d of first de gre e m urde r in C a lifornia . He c om m e n c e d this fe de ra l ha

b e a s a c tion in 2010 unde

r the Antite rrorism

and 

# FIL ED FEB 16 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble R ic ha rd D. B e nne tt, Unite d

State s Distric t Judgefor the D istric t of M ary la

nd, sitting by

de signa tion.Effe c t ive De ath Pe na l t y Ac t of 1996 (AEDPA). Thedistric t c o urt de nie d his pe tition in 2014, ruling tha t C a lifornia ’ s de n ia l of O’ B rie n’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c l a im s wa s re a sona ble and m e rite d de fe re nc e unde r AEDPA. In 2015, we re ve rse d the distric t

c ourt’ s judge m e nt in pa

rt, finding tha

t the sta te c ourt’ s a pplic ation of Strick

land wa s obje c tive ly

unre a sona

ble be c a use O’ B rie n e sta blishe d a c olora ble c la i m of re lie f and wa s ne ve r a fforde d a sta te or fe de ra l e vide ntia ry he a ring on thec l a im . Ac c ordingly , we re m ande d for a n e vide ntia ry he aring with re spe c t to se v e ra l sub-c l a im s of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. The distric t c o urt he ld a

n e v ide ntia ry he aring a nd a ga in de n ie d O’ B rie n’ s pe tition. O’ B rie n a ppe a ls, a lle g ing tha

t c ounse l wa s ine ffe c t ive by fa i ling to: (1) introduc e e vide nc e from

R obe rt Gilm ore tha

t c o-pa rtic ipa nt W illia m W e llm an wa s at the gun shop a

t 10:00 a . m .; (2) introduc e Edwa rd W inslow’ s te stim ony

tha t O’ B rie n c a lle d the a

utoshop a t 10:49 a .m .; (3) introduc e W e llm an ’ s sta te m e nts of O’ B rie n’ s phoneusa g e and driving route on theda y of the m urde r; (4) im

pe a c h W e llm an on his c ha

nge d tim e line ; (5) introduc e c orroborating e vide nc e tha t O’ B rie n wa s hom e at 11:14 a . m .; a nd (6) introduc e e vide nc e of M ike C arric k’ s ATM withdra

wa ls on theda

y s pre c e ding them

urde r. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd § 2253, a

nd we re vie w the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of ha be a s re lie f de novo. Eslaminia v. W hite , 136 F.3d 1234, 21236 (9th C ir. 1998). W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s findings of fac t for c le ar

e rror. Silv a v . W

oodford , 279 F.3d 825, 835 (9th C ir. 2002). To show ine ffe c t ive a ssista nc e of c ounse l, O’ B rie n

m ust de m onstra

te tha t c ounse l’ s pe rform an c e fe ll be low a n obje c tive sta

nda rd of re a sona

b le ne ss a nd tha t he suffe re d pre

judic e a s a re sult. Strick

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687–92 (1984). Unde r the pe rform a nc e prong, we a sk whe t

he r c ounse l’ s de c isions were re a s ona ble from his pe rspe c tive at the tim e , sta rting from the “ strong pre sum ption that c ounse l’ s c onduc t fa lls within the wide ran ge of re a sona b le c onduc t.” Id . at 689. O’ B rie n’ s “ h ighly

de m anding”ta s k is to show tha t the only obje c tive e xpla nation for his c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e is “ gross inc om pe te nc e .” K

imme lman v . Morrison , 477 U.S. 365, 382 (1986). Unde r the pre judic e prong, O’ B rie n m

ust de m onstra

te a “ re a sona ble proba bility tha t, but for c o unse l’ s unprofe ssiona l e rrors, the re sult of theproc e e ding would ha ve be e n diffe re nt.” Strick land, 466 U.S. a

t 694. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s ruling. O’ B rie n ha s fa ile d to sa tisfy e ithe r Strick land e le m e nt. C ounse l’ s pe rform an c e wa s obje c t ive ly re a sona ble . He a de quate ly inve stiga te d pote ntia l witne sse s a

n d form e d a

n a libi de fe nse with theinform ation that wa s a va i l a ble . For e xam

ple , c o unse l’ s de c ision to c a ll C arl C hristoffe rson

3inste a d of Gilm ore wa s obje c tive ly re a sona ble be c a use C hristoffe rson worke d at the g un shop theda

y of the m

urde r, and Gilm ore ’ s te stim ony did not c o rroborate O’ B rie n’ s a libi de fe nse . C ounse l’ s de c i sion not to c a ll W inslow a s a witne ss wa s a lso re a sona

ble be c a use he a sse sse d tha

t W inslow would not be

a c re dible witne ss, and W inslow c ould not pinpoint the tim e of O’ B rie n’ s phone c a l l. C ounse l followe d through on his stra te g y to show W e llm an wa s ly ing whe n he c rosse xam ine d W e llm a

n a bout his ple a

ba rga in a nd a rgue d during c losing tha

t the ple a a gre e m e nt ga

ve W e llm an a

m otive to lie . Ne ithe r c a

n O’ B rie n de m onstra

t e pre judic e . The e vide n c e a dduc e d at the e vide ntia ry he a ring, ha d c ounse l introduc e d it a t tria l, would not ha

ve like ly a lte re d the v e rdic t. The e vide nc e a ga inst O’ B rie n wa s signific ant. O’ B rie n borrowe d a nd late r re turne d a

shotgun with a

m issing shotgun she l l tha t m atc he d the ty

pe tha t kille d vic tim

Ky le Sm e lse r. Two c o-pa rtic i pa nts ide ntifie d O’ B rie n a s the shoote r. O’ B rie n told his friend he ha d kille d som e o ne for a “ wa d of c a sh.” For e xam ple , O’ B rie n wa s not pre

j udic e d by his a ttorne y ’ s fa i lure to introduc e C arric k’ s phone re c ord or a sk C arric k a bout the11:14 a .m . phone c a ll. C arric k’ s phonere c ord m e re ly indic ate d a

n inc om ing c a ll from

an unknown phone num be r. O’ B rie n wa s not pre judic e d by

c ounse l’ s fa ilure to re

je c t C arric k’ s

4bla

nke t a s se rtion of his privile ge a ga inst se lf-inc rim i nation be c a use C arric k c ould a sse rt his privile g e in re sponseto que stions a bout thec a ll. Nor wa s O’ B rie n pre

judic e d by

c o unse l’ s om ission of W e llm a n ’ s sta te m e nts in De te c tive Hoa gla

nd’ s re port, whic h re late d to O’ B rie n’ s phone usa ge and W e llm an’ s tra

ve l route . B oth sta

te m e nts fit we ll within the prose c ution’ s c a se at tria l . La s tly , O’ B rie n

wa s not pre

judic e d by c ounse l’ s de c ision not to introduc e e vide nc e tha

t C arric k m a de two ATM withdra w a ls on theda

y s pre c e ding the c rim e . How C arric k obta ine d m one y ha s little te n d e nc y

to provehow O’ B rie n obta ine d m one y . The re is no like lihood suc h e v ide nc e would ha ve c ha nge d the outc om e of tria l. O’ B rie n ha s thus fa i le d to show tha t he re c e i ve d ine ffe c t ive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. AFFIRM E D.

5