N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GEOR GE R

USSELL KAYER , Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt, v. DAVID SHINN, Dire c tor, Dire c tor of the Ariz ona De pa rtm e nt of C orre c tions, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 09-99027 D.C . No. 2:07-c v-02120-DGC M EM O R ANDUM *

On R e m and from

the Unite d State s Supre m e C ourt B e fore : W . FLETC HER , OW ENS, a nd FRIEDLAND, C i rc uit Judge s. W e pre viously

grante d Ka

y e r ha b e a s re lie f ba se d

on his c la im

of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l during thepe na l ty pha se of his proc e e dings. Se eK ay e r v . Ry an , 923 F.3d 692 (9th C ir. 2019). TheSupre m e C ourt gra nte d c e rtiora

ri a nd va c ate d our de c ision. Se eShinn v . K ay e r , 141 S. C t. 517 (2020) (pe r c uriam ).



# FIL ED MAR 25 2021 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.Now on re m and, we a ddre ss the sole issue we de c l ine d to re a c h in our prior

opinion. W e a ffirm

the distric t

c ourt’ s de nia l of Ka

y e r’ s writ of ha

be a s c orpus. In our prior opinion, we

de c line d to re a c h Ka

y e r’ s c ha lle nge to the se nte nc ing judge ’ s de nia l of a 90- or 180-da

y c ontinua nc e of his mitiga

tion he aring for a d ditiona l m itiga

tion inve s tiga

tion, a s ha d be e n re que ste d by Ka y e r’ s c ounse l. Se eK ay e r , 923 F.3d a

t 725. A l though the judge wa s initia lly pre pa re d to gra nt a thirty -day c ontinua n c e , he de nie d it following a n e xte nde d c olloquy

during whic h Kay e r re p e ate dly

e xpre sse d his opposition to a c ontinua nc e . Ka y e r did not fe e l that “ m itiga tion [wa s] going to be

a m a jor fa c tor in the [se nte nc ing] de c ision.”In re sponse to the de nia l, Ka y e r’ s c ounse l atte m

pte d, but wa s not pe rm itte d, to withdra w on the ba sis tha

t he wa s una

ble to “ e ffe c tive ly

put on [a ] m itiga

tion c a se ,” without the

c om p le te d inve s tiga

tion. B o th the judge an d Ka y e r’ s c o unse l sta te d on the re c ord tha

t the y be lie ve d Ka

y e r unde rstood theim

porta nc e of the m itiga tion e vide n c e and the c onse que nc e s of opposing the c ontinua nc e . W ith Kay e r’ s c onse nt , the judge de la y e d the m itiga

tion he a ring by two we e k s in orde r to provide a dditional tim e for inve stiga tion without re sc h e duling these nte nc ing he aring. During tha

t m itiga tion he a ring, the m itiga

tion spe c i a list te stifie d a

bout the va rious a ve nue s she inte nde d to inve stiga te if give n a dditional tim e . The judge a ga in provide d Ka

y e r an opportunity

to re que st a

c ontinua nc e for furthe r 2m itiga

tion inve stiga

tion. Ka y e r re m a ine d oppose d to a c ontinua n c e , and none wa s grante d. On dire c t a

p pe a l , the Ariz ona

Supre m e C ourt c onc lude d tha t Ka y e r wa s c om pe te nt whe n he oppose d the c ontinua nc e , a nd tha t the se nte nc ing judgedid not e rr in de fe rring to Ka

y e r’ s wa ive r of a dditional m itiga tion inve stiga

tion. B e fore us, Ka y e r argue s tha

t the Ariz ona

Supre m e C ourt’ s re

je c t ion of this c la im

wa s ba se d on a

n unre a sona

b l e de te rm ination of thefa c ts or, a lte rnative ly , tha t the C ourt unre a s ona

bly a pplie d fe de ra l la

w a s c le arly

e s ta blishe d by

the Unite d State s Supre m e C ourt in c o nc luding tha t the se nte nc ing judge ’ s de c ision did not de prive Kay e r of e ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. Se e28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1)

– (2). W e disa gre e . First, the Ariz ona Supre m e C ourt’ s c onc l usion tha t Ka y e r wa s c om

pe te nt whe n he oppose d

the c ontinua

nc e wa s not a

n unre a sona

ble de te rm ination of the fa c t s within the

m e a ning of § 2254(d)(2) be c a use the re c ord offe rs support for suc h a c onc l usion. B oth thejudge and Ka y e r’ s c ounse l be lie ve d Ka y e r unde rstood the c onse q ue nc e s of not pe rm itting a dditional m itiga tion inve stiga

tion. Ka y e r ha d m ultipleopportunitie s to support his c ounse l’ s re que st for a c ontinua nc e , inc luding shortly a fte r the m itiga

tion spe c ia list’ s te stim ony tha t she ne e de d m o re tim e to c onduc t a n inve s tiga

tion, y e t he de c l ine d to do so. Unde r AEDPA’ s de fe re ntia l 3re vie w, we c annot sa y the Ariz ona

Supre m e C ourt’ s c onc lusion wa s obje c tive ly unre a s ona

ble . Se ePizzuto v . Yordy , 947 F.3d 510, 523 (9th C ir. 2019) (pe r c uriam ). Se c ond, the Ariz ona

Supre m e C ourt’ s re

j e c tion of this c l a im

wa s not c ontra ry to, nor a n unre a sona

b le a pplic ation of, fe de ra l la

w c le arly e sta blishe d in a de c ision of theUnite d State s Supre m e C ourt, a s is re quire d unde r § 2254(d)(1). Although Ka

y e r dire c ts us to Supre m e C ourt opinions disc ussing the ty

pic a l division of la

bor be twe e n attorne y s a

nd the ir c lie nts, he ha s not ide ntifie d a ny c le arly e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w prohibiting a

se nte nc ing judge , in the c irc um sta nc e s of this c a se , from

a c c e ding to a

de fe nda nt’ s e xpre ss wish to de c l ine a c ontinua nc e . The distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the writ of ha be a s c o rpus is the re fore a ffirm e d. AFFIRM E D.

4