N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAM ES EUGENE EDW

ARD S, Pe t i tione r - Appe l la

nt, v. GAR Y SWAR THOUT, W arde n, R e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 11-16332 D.C . No. 3:08-c v-02841-WHA M EM O R ANDUM *

DAVID E. EDW

ARDS, Pe t i tione r - Appe l la

nt, v. GAR Y SWAR THOUT, W arde n, R e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 11-16337 D.C . No. 3:08-c v-02842-WHA

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m Alsup, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

15, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED JUL 18 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

n d is not pre c e d e nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B e fore : NOONAN, FISHER an d NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s.

C a lifornia sta te prisone rs Ja

m e s Edwa

rds a nd Da vid Edwa rds a p pe a l the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of the i r 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s pe titions. The

c ourt ha s be e n inform e d tha

t Ja m e s Edwa

rds die d on M arc h 21, 2013. His a ppe a l is dism isse d a s m oot. Se e Griffe y v . Lindse y , 349 F.3d 1157 (9th C ir. 2003). 1 W ith re spe c t to Da

vid Edwa rds’ pe tition, we have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 and 2253, a

nd we a ffirm . 1. Appe lla

nt’ s brie fing fa ile d to a ddre ss or a pply the Antite rrorism

and Effe c t ive De ath Pe na l t

y Ac t of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d), whic h se ts forth the a

pplic a b le , highly de fe re ntia l substa ntive sta n da rd for fe d e ra l ha

be a s re vie w of sta

te c a se s . The ope ning brie f did not m e ntion or discuss thela st re a s one d sta

te c ourt de c i sion, nor did a p pe lla nt inc lude this de c ision in the e xc e rpts of re c ord. Appe lla

nt ne ithe r a

rgue d nor de m onstra

te d why the sta te c ourt proc e e ding “ re s ulte d in a

de c ision tha

t wa s c ontra

ry to, or involve d a

n unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of, c le arly

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 why the sta te c ourt proc e e ding “ re sulte d in a de c ision tha

t wa s ba s e d on a

n unre a sona

ble

1 Eve n if his a

ppe a l we re not m oot, we would a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of Ja

m e s Edwa

rds’ ha be a s pe tition for the

sa m e re a sons we a ffirm

the de nia l of David Edwa

rds’ pe tition. 2de te rm i nation of thefa c t s in light of the e vide nc e pre se nte d in theStat e c o urt proc e e ding,” id . § 2254(d)(2). Inste a d, a ppe lla nt sim ply sought denovo re vie w of his c onstitutiona

l c la im s. Issue s not discusse d in the ope ning brie f are de e m e d wa ive d. Se e Martine

z -Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C i r. 1996). Ac c ordingly , any argum e nt tha t a ppe lla nt is e ntitle d to re lie f unde r AEDPA is wa ive d. 2. Eve n if the issue s we re pre se rve d , a ppe l la nt ha s not sa

tisfie d AEDPA’ s highly de fe re ntia l sta

nda rd. B oth theC a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l a

n d the sta te ha be a s c ourt looke d to a

ppe lla nt’ s c ourse of c o nduc t both be fore and a fte r the arra ignm e nt, noting his re fusa l to e nte r a ple a , to wa ive tim e , to re t a in c o unse l a fte r se ve ra l c o ntinua

nc e s or to a c c e pt c ourt a

ppointe d c ounse l be fore fina lly opting to re pre se nt him se lf. The sta te ha be a s c ourt found tha

t in “ the se c irc um sta

n c e s” the re wa s “ no de nia l of a

form a l a rra ignm e nt” or “ de n ia l of c ounse l at a rra ignm e nt, a

nd the t ria l c ourt wa s justifie d i n e nte ring a ple a of not guilty

[without pre

j udic e ] on the i r be ha lf.” This c onc l usion wa s not c ontra ry to or a n unre a sona

ble a p plic ation of Supre m e C ourt pre c e d e nt. Se e28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1); Hamilton v . Alabama , 368 U.S. 52 (1961); se e also B e ll v . C o ne , 535 U.S. 685 (2002); U nite d State

s v . C ronic , 466 U.S. 648 (1984); Unite d State s v . W ade , 388 U.S. 218 (1967). Nor

3wa s it ba se d on a n unre a sona

b le de te rm ination of the fa c ts. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(2). CASE NO . 11-16332 DISM ISSE D AS M O O T . CASE NO . 11-16337 AFFIRME D.

4