N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R OB ER T ANTHONY SM ITH,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt, v. RENEE B AKER

and ADAMPAUL LAXALT, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-16711 D.C . No. 3:08-c v-00335-R C J-W G C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R obe rt C live Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 18, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd B EA a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED OCT 20 2016 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2)R obe rt Anthony Sm ith (Sm ith) a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his pe tition for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus brought unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2254. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2253, a

nd we a ffirm . Unde r the Antite rrorism and Effe c tive De ath Pe n a l ty Ac t of 1996, ha

be a s re lie f is a va ila ble only if a sta te c ourt’ s prior a djudic ation of thepe titione r’ s c la im s

“ (1) re sulte d in a

de c i sion tha

t wa s c ontra

ry to, or involve d a

n unre a sona

b le a pplic ation of, c le arly

e s ta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de t e rm i ne d by

the Supre m e C ourt of theUnite d State s; or (2) re sulte d in a de c ision tha

t wa s ba se d on a

n unre a s ona

ble de te rm i nation of thefa c ts in light of the e vide nc e pre se nte d in the Stat e c ourt proc e e ding.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). Smith wa s c onvic t e d by a Ne va da jury of se c ond de gre e m

urde r. The c la im s he is ra ising now were a djudic ate d by the N e va d a

Supre m e C ourt. W e hold tha t the Ne va da

Supre m e C ourt’ s dismissa l of Sm ith’ s prose c utoria l m isc onduc t c la im s a n d ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of tria l c ounse l c la im s wa s not c ontra ry to or a n unre a sona

ble a pplic at ion of e sta

b l ishe d fe de ra l la w. I Sm ith a lle ge s tha

t se v e ra l of the prose c utor’ s sta te m e nts during the e xam ination of a

witne ss a nd a g a in during c losing a rgum e nt a m ounte d to a viola tion of his due

proc e ss a n d fa ir tria l rights under the Fifth, Sixth, a nd 2Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nts. In Darde n v . W ainw right , 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986), the Supre m e C ourt “ m e a sure d the fa irne ss of [a ] pe t itione r’ s tria l by c onside ring, inte r alia , (1) whe the r the prose c utor’ s c om m e nts m a n ipula te d or m issta

te d the e vide nc e ; (2) whe the r the tria l c ourt ga ve a c urative instruc tion; a

nd (3) the we ight of the e vide nc e a ga inst thea c c u se d .” Tak Sun Tan v . Runne ls , 413 F.3d 1101, 1115 (9th C ir. 2005) (c iting Darde n , 477 U.S. a t 181). During Sm

ith’ s tria l, the prose c utor did misc ha

ra c te riz e the prior te s tim o ny of a n e y e witne ss who ha d te stifie d inc onsiste ntly

a bout whe the r she ha d se e n Sm ith shoot the vic t im . Howe ve r, the c ourt sustaine d a n im m e diate obje c tion to the

m isc ha ra c te riz ation, and the re m a ining e vide nc e a g a inst Sm ith inc lude d a se c o nd e y e witne ss ide ntific ation of Smith a s the shoote r and .9 m illim e te r Luge r c artridge s found in Sm i th’ s a pa rtm e nt on theda

y of the shooting tha

t ha d the sa

m e he a d sta m p a s the c a sing re c ove re d from the truc k be d whe re the vic tim wa s shot. Thus, the

Ne va da Supre m e C ourt’ s c onc l usion tha t the prose c utor’ s m issta

t e m e nts did not rende r Sm i th’ s tria l unfa i r wa s not a n unre a sona

ble a pplic at ion of e s ta

blishe d fe de ra l la

w. 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). At the ve ry le a st, “ fa irm inde d jurists c ould disag re e on the c orre c tne ss of the sta

te c ourt’ s de c ision,” Harrington v. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (inte rna l quota

tions omitte d), a

nd Sm ith the re fore is not e ntitle d to fe de ra l ha be a s re lie f on this c la im , se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). 3Sm ith a lso a lle ge s tha t during c l osing a

rgum e nt the prose c utor m issta te d the la w re ga rding thele sse r-inc lude d offe nse of volunta ry m ansla ughte r, and tha

t this m issta te m e nt re nde re d

the tria l funda

m e nta lly unfa ir. The Supre m e C ourt ha s c a utione d tha

t “ a c rim ina l c onvic tion is not to be lightly ove rturne d on theba sis of a prose c utor’ s c o m

m e nts sta nding a l one , for the sta

te m e nts or c onduc t m

ust be vie w e d in c onte x t ; only

by so doing c an it be de te rm ine d whe the r the prose c utor’ s c onduc t a ffe c te d the fa irne ss of the tria l .” Unite d State s v . Young , 470 U.S. 1, 11 (1985). Asse ssing thesta te m e nt in c onte xt, it is c le ar tha t the prose c utor in Sm i th’ s c a s e did not mi s sta te the la w in c losing a

rgum e nt but ra

t he r re s tate d re le va nt jury instruc tions a

nd a pplie d those instruc tions to the fa c ts in e vide nc e . The Ne va da

Supre m e C ourt did not unre a sona bly a pply e sta blishe d fe de ra l la w, 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1), in c onc luding tha t the prose c utor’ s c losing a rgum e nt did not

“ so infe c t [] the tria l with unfairne ss a s to m ake the re sulting c onvic tion a de nia l of due proc e ss,” J

o n e s v . Ry an , 691 F.3d 1093, 1102 (9th C i r. 2012) (quoting Darde n , 477 U.S. a

t 181). Sm ith is not entitle d to fe de ra l ha

b e a s re l ie f on this c la im . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). II Sm ith ne xt a

rgue s tha t he re c e ive d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c o unse l be c a

use his tria l attorne y

fa ile d to prope rly

inve stiga te the c a se , pre se nt e xc ulpa tory 4witne s se s, a

nd obje c t to ina dm issiblete stim ony . To prove ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e of c ounse l, Sm i th m

ust m a k e two showings: first, tha t his a ttorne y ’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt, a

nd se c ond, tha

t his a ttorne y ’ s de fic ie nt pe rform anc e pre judic e d his de fe nse . The form e r “ re q uire s showing tha

t c ounse l m a de e rrors so se rious tha t c ounse l wa s not func tioning a s the ‘ c ounse l’ gua rante e d the de fe nda

nt by the Sixth Am e ndm e nt,” and the latte r “ re quire s showing tha t c ounse l’ s e rrors we re so se rious a s to deprive the de fe nda

nt of a fa ir tria l, a tria l whose re sult is re lia ble .” Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). W he n a sse s sing a S

tric k land c la im , c ourts “ m

ust indulge

a strong pre sum

ption tha t c ounse l’ s c onduc t fa lls within thewide range of re a sona ble profe ssiona l a s sista

n c e ; tha t is, thede fe nda

nt m ust ove rc om e the pre sum

ption tha t , unde r the c irc um s ta

nc e s, the c ha lle nge d a c tion might bec onside re d sound trial stra te gy . ” Id . at 689 (inte rna l quota tions and c ita tion omitte d ). Sm ith ha s shown ne ithe r de fic ie nc y on the pa rt of his a ttorne y nor re sulting pre j udic e . First, his a

ttorne y c ross e xam ine d witne sse s at tria l re g arding the inform at ion Sm ith fa

ults him for not ha

ving inve stiga

t e d, so it is unc le ar what m ore the re que ste d

inve s tiga tion would ha

ve y ie lde d. Se c ond, his a ttorne y de c ide d not to c a ll witne sse s whose te stim ony would ha ve c o nflic te d with Smi th’ s c hie f de fe nse tha

t som e one nam e d M ario Sa nc he z wa s in fa c t the shoote r. This wa s 5like ly

a sound trial stra

te gy . Third, whileSm ith’ s attorne y did not obje c t to a

n argua b ly im prope r que s tion pose d to a witne ss, the attorne y

e l ic ite d a n a dm ission on c ross e xam inat ion of the witne ss tha t he r prior te stim ony

wa s not a c c urate . If the fa ilure to obje c t wa s inde e d de fic ie nt, no pre

judic e re sulte d. The re fore , the Ne va da Supre m e C ourt did not unre a sona b ly a pply e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w in de ny ing Sm ith’ s c l a im for ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of tria l c ounse l , a

nd Sm i th is not e ntitle d to fe d e ra l ha

be a s re lie f on this c la im . 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1).

III Fina lly , we de c line to e xpa nd the c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility to e nc om pa ss Sm i th’ s six unc e rtifie d issue s be c a use no “ substa

ntia l showing of the

de nia l of a c onstitutiona

l right” ha s be e n m a de with re spe c t to the se c l a im s. 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c )(2). Sm ith ra ise d a ll six of the se issue s be fore the distric t c ourt, a n d the c ourt dismisse d

thre e of the issue s on proc e dura l grounds a nd de nie d the re m a ining thre e on the m e rits. Thedistric t c ourt’ s a djudic ation of the se c la im s is not subje c t to re a sona

ble de b ate and the issue s pre se nte d we re not “ a de quate to de se rve e nc oura g e m e nt to proc e e d furthe r.” Shac k le ford v . Hubbard

, 234 F.3d 1072, 1081 (9th C ir. 2000) (quoting Slac k v . Mc Danie l , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)). AFFIRM E D. 6