N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HUM B ER TO DIAZ, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. G.D. LEW IS, W a

rde n, a nd XAVIER B EC ERR A, Attorne y

Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t s - Appe lle e s . No. 15-15245 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01095-W B S-AC

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 W illia m B . Shubb, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a n d Subm itte d Oc tobe r 16, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : IKUTA a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s, a

n d M OLLOY, ** Distric t Judge . C a lifornia sta te prisone r Hum

be rto Dia z a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt de ny ing his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 pe tition. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2253, a

n d we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED OCT 23 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Dona ld W . M olloy , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M onta na , sitting by

de signa tion.In Ja

nua ry 2006, Dia

zwa s involve d in a

ga ng shooting in Sa

c ram e n to, C a lifornia . Following a

jury tria l, he wa s c onvic t e d of thre e c ounts of a tte m pte d m urde r on a i ding-a

nd-a be tting the orie s. The sole que stion be fore us is whe the r the sta te c o urt’ s de te rm inat ion tha t Dia z ’ s c o unse l wa s not ine ffe c tive whe n she c onc e de d during c losing a rgum e nt tha

t Dia z sa id “ ge t a

gun” prior to theshooting wa s a n obje c tive ly

unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of Stric k

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 1

“ [W ] e re vie w denov o the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to gra n t or de ny

a pe tition for a w rit of ha

be a s c orpus.” Lambe r t v . Blodge tt , 393 F.3d 943, 964 (9th C ir. 2004). Unde r the Antite rrorism and Effe c tive De at

h Pe na lty Ac t of 1996 (AEDPA), ha

be a s re l ie f “ sha l l not begrante d with re s pe c t to a

ny c la im that wa s a djudic ate d on the m e rits in Sta te c ourt proc e e dings” unle ss the sta te de c ision “wa s c ontra ry to, or involve d a

n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of, c le a

rly e sta blishe d Fe de ra l la w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d State s,” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1), or “ wa s ba se d on a n unre a sona

ble de te rm i nation of thefa c t s in light of the e vide n c e pre se nte d in theState c o urt proc e e d ing,” id. at § 2254(d)(2).

1 Although the

distric t c ourt de n ie d a

c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility a s to a ll of Dia z ’ s c la im s, this C ourt a ppointe d c ounse l a

nd gra n te d Dia z ’ s re que s t for a c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility a s to this single c la im .

2B e c a

use the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt a

nd the C ourt of Appe a l sum m arily de nie d Dia z ’ s postc onvic tion c l a im s, we “ look through” to the la st re a sone d

sta te c ourt de c ision, tha

t of the Sa c ram e nto C ounty Supe rior C ourt, a s the ba s is for the sta te c o urt judgm e nt. Ylst v . N u nne mak e r , 501 U.S. 797, 804 (1991); C anne dy v . Adams , 706 F.3d 1148, 1159 (9th C ir. 2013). To suc c e e d

on a c l a im for ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c o unse l, Diaz “ m

ust show tha t c ounse l’ s pe rform an c e wa s de fic ie nt” and “ that the de fic ie n t pe rform a nc e pre judic e d the de fe nse .” Stric k land, 466 U.S. a

t 687. Howe ve r,

“ [e ] sta blishing tha

t a sta te c ourt’ s a

pplic ation of Stric k

land wa s unre a sona

ble unde r § 2254(d) is a ll the m ore diffic ult. Thesta nda rds c re ate d by S

tric k land and § 2254(d) a

re both highly de fe re ntia l, a n d whe n the two a

pply in ta nde m , re vie w is doubly so.” Harrington v. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks a nd c ita tions omitte d). “ Whe n § 2254(d) a pplie s, the que stion is not whe the r c ounse l’ s a c t ions we re re a s ona b le . The que stion is whe the r the re is a ny re a s ona ble argum e nt tha

t c ounse l sa

tisfie d Stric k

l and ’ s de fe re ntia l sta

nda rd.” Id. Unde r this “ d oubly ” de fe re ntia l sta nda rd, Dia zis not e ntitle d to re l ie f. The sta te c o urt c orre c tly

c ite d Stric k

land an d c onc lude d tha

t c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s not de fic ie nt, finding the

re c ord c ould support c ounse l’ s the o ry in c losing tha

t Dia z sa id “ ge t a

gun” only

to sc are off pote ntia l a ssa ila n ts. Tha t “ fa c tua l de te rm ination 3is not unre a sona ble m e re ly

be c a use ” we m ight “ have re a c he d a diffe re nt c onc lusion in the first insta nc e .” W ood v . Alle n , 558 U.S. 290, 301 (2010). M ore o ve r, the sta

te c o urt “ wa s not obliga

te d to a c c e pt a se l f-proc la i m e d a s se rtion by tria l c ounse l of ina de quate pe rform anc e ” a fte r the fa c t. Edw ards v . Lamarque , 475 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba nc ) (inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om itte d); se e a lso Strick

land, 466 U.S. a

t 689, 690 (a sse ssing re a s ona ble ne ss “ a s of the tim e of c ounse l’ s c onduc t” ); He ndric k s v . C alde ron , 70 F.3d 1032, 1039 (9th C ir. 1995) (finding the“ latte r-da

y e m e rge n c e of [c ounse ls] ’ be lie f in the i r own inc om pe te nc e runs a foul of the rule of c onte m pora ry a sse s sm e nt” ). Nor wa s tria l c ounse l re quire d to obta in Diaz ’ s c onse nt in m aking he r a rgum e nt. Florida v . N

ix on , 543 U.S. 175, 187 (2004); se e also Tay lor v . Illinois , 484 U.S. 400, 418 (1988) (“ The a dve rsary proc e ss c ould not func tion e ffe c tive ly if e v e ry ta c tic a l de c ision re quire d c lie nt a pprova l.” ). AFFIRM E D.

4