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 IC HARD LAR

A, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, W arde n, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-56908

D.C . No. 2:11-c v-04067-R GKDTB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 3, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, FISHER , a

nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s . R ic ha rd La ra a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his ha be a s c orpus pe tition file d unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2254. La ra wa s c o nvic te d of first de gre e m urde r,
atte m pte d m urde r, and c onspira c y

to c om m it m urde r ste m

m ing from

an a lte rc ation 

# FIL ED SEP 18 2015 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 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).in the pa

rking lot of a

m arke t in 2004. A t tria l, the c ourt a dm itte d sta te m e nts m a de by Je ssie He re dia , La

ra ’ s c o-de fe nda

nt a nd a n e m ploy e e at the m arke t , to C a rlos C have z , He re dia ’ s c oworke r. La ra ’ s pe tition c onte nds tha t the se sta te m e nts we re te stim onia l a

nd tha t the ir a dm ission viola

te d the C onfronta

tion C la use of the Sixth Am e ndm e nt. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2253, a nd we a ffirm
. Lara argue s tha

t the C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l ’ s de t e rm i nation tha t He re dia ’ s he arsay

sta te m e nts we re nonte stim onia l wa s c o ntra ry to the Unite d Stat e s Supre m e C ourt’ s de c isions in C raw f ord v . W ashington , 541 U.S. 36 (2004),
and Dav is v . W

ashington , 547 U.S. 813 (2006). W e disa gre e . The Supre m e C ourt ha s ne ve r found a sta te m e nt m a de outsideof a

la w e nforc e m e nt c o nte xt to be te s tim onia l. Se e Dav is , 541 U.S. a t 823 n.2 (finding it

“ unne c e ssa

ry to c onside r whe the r and whe n sta te m e nts m a d e to som e one othe r tha n la w e nforc e m e nt pe rsonne l a re ‘ te stim onia l’ ” ); Mic higan v . Bry ant , 562 U.S. 344, 357 n.3 (2011) (sa

m e ). Thus, theC a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s de c ision wa s not c ontra ry to “ c le a rly e sta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1); se e also Murray v . Sc h r iro , 745 F.3d 984, 997 (9th C ir. 2014). Furthe rm ore , the C o nfronta tion C l a use is c onc e rne d with “ te stim o n ia l” he arsay like “ form a l sta

te m e nt[s] to gove rnm e nt offic e rs,” not “ c a sua l re m ark[s] to
an a c qua i nta

nc e .” C raw ford, 541 U.S. a

t 51. He re dia ’ s sta

te m e nts to C h av e z fa ll 2into thelatte r c ate gory . He re dia m a de the sta

te m e nts a t issue during a

n unprom pte d, inform a l c onve rsation be twe e n c o worke rs a t the ir pla c e of
e m ploy m e nt. The re fore , the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l ’ s c onc lusion tha t He re dia ’ s sta

te m e nts to C h ave zwe re nonte stim onia l wa s not “ c ontra ry to” or “ an unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation” of C

raw ford . 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1); se e also De lgadillo v. W

oodford , 527 F.3d 919, 927 (9th C ir. 2008). Additionally , we grant La ra ’ s m otion to e xpa

nd the c e rtific ate of
a ppe a la bility a s to his c la im

tha t the tria l c ourt’ s dismi ssa l of Juror Num be r Nine viola te d his Sixth Ame ndm e nt rights. The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Juror Num

be r Nine wa s una

ble to pe rform

his dutie s a s a

juror
wa s not c ontra

ry to c le a rly e sta b lishe d fe de ra l la

w. Se e Unite d State

s v . C hriste nse n , __F.3d __ , 2015 W L 5010591, a

t *31–39 (9th C ir. Aug. 25, 2015). W e de ny La ra ’ s m otion to e xpa

nd the c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility to inc lude
any a dditional unc e rtifie d issue s. Se e Doev . W oodford , 508 F.3d 563, 567 (9th C ir. 2007). Ac c ordingly , we c onc lude tha t the distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d La ra ’ s ha be a s pe tition. AFFIRM E D.

3