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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 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 TRA V I S LA RI M ER, 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, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 55162 D. C . No . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 2 5 6 9 - VA P - AN 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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia V i r gi ni aA . P hi l l i ps , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a y8, 2012 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: D . W . N E L S O N , F IS H E R , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner T ravi s R ex L ar i m er(“ L ar i m er ”) appeal s the di stri ct c ourt ’ s de ni a l of

hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pe t i t i on f orw r i tof

habe a s c orpus . W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § § 1 2 9 1 a n d2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED

MA Y17 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

W e r e vi e w de novo adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of ape t i t i on f

orhabe a s c orpus b r o u g h t b yas ta te p r is o n e r . H ur le s v . R y an , 65 0 F . 3d 13 01 , 13 08 –0 9 (9th C i r. 2 0 1 1 ). In o rd erto g ra n t L ar im er ’s p etit io n , w e m u st fin dth at th e s tate co u rt’s adj ud i ca t i on of a c l ai m “ re sul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as contraryt o, or i nv ol ved 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 F e de r a l l a w , a s de t e rm i ne d bythe S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es , ” or thatthe st at e c ou rt ’ s c on cl usi on s w er e

“ base d o n an u nrea sonabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i gh tof the evi dence pres ent ed i n the S t at e c ou rtproceedi ng . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d). B ec ause the part i es a r e f a m ilia rw ith th e f

a c tu a l a n d p r o c e d u r a l h is to ryo f th e c a s e , w e d o n o t r e c o u n t it in d e ta il h e r e . A s th e S ta te c o n c e d e s , th e u s e o f L a r im e r ’s p o s t- Mi r anda si l ence attri al vi ol a t e d D o

y le v . O h io , 426 U . S . 610, 619 ( 1976) ( hol di ng tha t“ the us e f or i m peac hm entpu rposes of pet i t i on er s’ si l ence , atthe t i m e of arr es tand aft er r e c e i vi ng Mi r anda w a rn in g s , v io la te [ s ] th e D u e P r o c e s s C lau s e o f th e F o u rte e n th A m endm ent ”) . L ar i m ercont ends thatthe D oyle error i n thi s c as e w as prej ud i ci al an d req u i res u s t o g ran th i s p et i t i o n . W e co n cl u d e th atth e erro r w as h arm l ess gi ve n ourr e vi e w of

the r e c or d a s aw hol e a nd the “ c e rt a i nl yw e i ghty ” e vi de nc e of L a r im e r ’s g u ilt. B r e c ht v . A br aham s on , 507 U . S . 619, 637–39 ( 1993) ( appl y i ng- 3-

harm l es s e rr or st andard w hi ch as ks w hether D oyle e rr or“ ha d s ubs t a nt i a l a nd i nj uri ou s e ff

ec tor i nfl uence i n d et erm i ni ng the j ury’ s ver di ct ”) . L ar i m ernextcont ends thathi s tri al coun se l re nd er ed i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l (“ IA C ”) , i n v i ol at i on of the S i xth A m endm entby: (1) f ai l i ng t o o bj ec t t o e xpe rtga ng opi ni on t e s t i m ony ; ( 2) f a i l i ng t o obj e c tt o t e s t i m onyc onc e rni ng L ari m er’ s p ri o r m i sd em ean o r o ffen ses fo r w eap o n s p o ssessi o n an dreck l ess dr i vi ng; a nd ( 3) f

a i l i ng t o i nvoke the a tt orne y - c l i e ntpr i vi l e ge t o pr e ve ntc odefe nd ant ’ s c ou nsel fr om exam i ni ng L ar i m erabou tw hether hi s t es t i m on y w as scri p t ed . T o p ro v e IA C , L ari m er m u stsh o w b o th th at : (1 ) th e assi st an ce w as so de f e c t i ve a s t o f

a l l be l ow a n obj e c t i ve s t a nda r d of r e a s onabl e ne s s , a nd ( 2) the d e f ic ie n t p e r f

o rm a n c e p r e

ju d ic e d th e d e f

e n s e . Str i c kland v . W

as hi ngton , 4 6 6 U . S. 668, 687 ( 1984) . W e c onc l ude tha tL a r i m e rha s notm e thi s bur de n. F i r s t , a ny fa i l ure t o o bj ec tt o o pi ni on t es t i m on y r el at i ng t o g ang m em bers hi p w as an o b je c tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le ta c tic a l d e c is io n g iv e n th e e x p e rtis e o f th e w itn e s s . Se e i d. at68 9 (expl ai ni ng the strong pres um pt i on thatchal l enged act i on s w er e s ou nd tri al s tr a t e gya nd tha tc ouns e l ’ s t a c t i c a l de c i s i ons a r e gi ve n “ w i de l a t i tude ” ) . S e c ond, c ouns e l m a de at a c t i c a l de c i s i on t o i ntr oduc e e vi de nc e of L a r i m e r ’ s pr i orw e apons po ss es si on offe nse and obj ec t ed t o the use of L ar i m er ’ s r ec kl es s dri vi ng offe nse, a n d th e r e f

o r e w a s n o t d e f

ic ie n t. Se e i d. T hi rd, coun se l ’ s f ai l ure t o i nt erpo se an- 4-

att orney- cl i entpri vi l ege obj ec t i on t o the qu es t i on w hether L ar i m er ’ s t es t i m on y w as s c r ip te d c o u ldb e u n d e r s to o d a s a n o b je c tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le ta c tic a l d e c is io n . Se e i d. E ve n i f c ouns e l ’ s f

a i l ur e t o obj e c tc oul d be s how n t o be unr e a s onabl e , the e rr or w a s n o t p r e

ju d ic ia l. Se e id. a t687. T he s t a t e c ourt ’ s de ni a l of L a r i m e r ’ s pe t i t i on on hi s I A C cl ai m s w as nei ther c on traryt o, no r an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, c le a r lye s tab lis h e d f

e d e r a l la w . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d). L a r im e rh a s n o t s h o w n e n title m e n t to an e v id e n tia ryh e a r in g b a s e do n h is I A C c la im th a t h is c o u n s e l f a ile d to o b

je c t to q u e s tio n s r e g a r d in g w h e th e rh is a tto rn e ys c r ip te dh is te s tim o n y . Se e Sc hr i r o v . L andr i gan , 550 U . S . 465, 474 (200 7). G i ven the st at e c ou rtre cord, the di stri ctcourtw as no tob l i gat ed t o con du ct a n e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng a s the “ r e c or d r e f ut e s [ L a r i m e r ’ s ] f

a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons or otherw i se prec l ud es habeas re l i ef . ” I d. ; se e al so C ul len v. P i nh ol

ster , 1 3 1 S .C t. 13 88 , 13 98 (201 1) (hol di ng that“ re vi ew un der § 22 54 (d)( 1) i s l i m i t ed t o the re cord th a t w a s b e f

o r e th e s ta te c o u rt th a t a d ju d ic a te dth e c la im o n th e m e r its ” ) . L ari m er’ s l astco n t en t i o n i s th atth e cu m u l at i v e effect of erro rs i n h i s case p r e ju d ic e d h is r ig h t to af

a irtr ia l a n dw a rr a n ts th e g r a n tin g o f h is p e titio n . W e d is a g r e e . B e c au s e w e f in d o n lyo n e h a rm le s s e rr o rin th is c a s e , “th e r e is n o th in g to ac cum ul at e t o a l evel of a c on st i tut i on al vi ol at i on . ” M an cuso v. O l i varez , 292 F . 3d 9 3 9 , 9 5 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) .- 5-

AF F I RME D.