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 W R IGHT, Jr.,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. R OB ER T LEGR

AND, W arde n; ATTOR NEY GENER

AL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA,

R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-16172 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00286-M M D-VPC
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 M iranda M . Du, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 24, 2019 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M ELLOY, *** B YB EE, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED
N OV 04 2019 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble M ic ha e l J. M e lloy , Unite d State s C i rc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Eighth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.Jam e s Wright Jr. a ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s pe tition. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a nd 2253. W e
a ffirm
. W e re v ie w a

distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a ha be a s pe tition denovo. He in v
. Sulliva n , 601 F.3d 897, 905 (9th C ir. 2010). Unde r the Antite rrorism an d Effe c tive De ath Pe na lty

Ac t (“ AEDPA” ), ha

be a s re lie f is a

va ila ble only if the sta te c ourt’ s de c ision wa s “ c ontra

ry to, or involve d a

n unre a sona

b le a pplic 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” ; or if the de c ision “wa s ba se d on a n unre a sona

ble de t e rm i nation of thefa c ts in light of the e vide nc e pre se nte d in theState c ourt proc e e d ing.” 28 U.S.C
. § 2254(d)(1)–(2). Wright a sse rts two insta

nc e s of prose c utoria l m isc onduc t at tria l— one during c ross e xam ination of his c o-de fe nda nt a nd a n othe r during the re butta l te stim ony of De t e c tive Je nkins. A prose c utoria l m isc onduc t c la im is suc c e s sful on fe de ra l ha be a s re vie w only

if the c o nduc t “ so infe c te d the tria l with unfa irne ss a s to
m ake the re sulting c onvic tion a de nia l of due proc e ss.” Darde n v . W a inw r ight , 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986) (quoting Donne lly v . De C hristoforo , 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974)).

2The Ne va d a Supre m e C ourt de nie d the first c la i m of prose c utoria l
m isc o nduc t, be c a

use the sta

te did not viola

t e the distric t c ourt’ s orde r prohibiting the u se of the c o-de fe nda

nt’ s sta te m e nt in its c a se in c hie f. Ana ly z ing the se c ond
c la im of prose c utoria l m isc onduc t for pla in e rror (be c a

use Wright did not obje c t to De te c tive Je nkins’ s te stim ony at the tim e it wa s give n ), the c o urt de nie d the se c ond
c la im , be c a

use the sta

te did not solic it De te c tive Je nkins’ s te stim ony . For ne ithe r
c la im doe s Wright c ite , nor do we find, a ny Unite d State s Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt tha

t sugge sts theNe va da

Supre m e C ourt’ s de c ision wa s in e rror or that the a lle ge d insta

nc e s of prose c utoria l m isc onduc t “ so infe c te d the tria l with unfa irne ss a s to m ak e the re sulting c onvic tion a de nia l of due proc e s s.” Id. Ac c ordingly , ne ithe r of the rulings by the Ne va d a

Supre m e C ourt we re

“ c o ntra ry to, or a n unre a s ona

ble a pplic ation of, c le arly

e sta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). Furthe r, none of the c om p la i ne d of c onduc t

rise s to thele ve l of a de nia l of due proc e ss. The re fore , the distric t c o urt prope rly

dism isse d Wright’ s ha be a s pe tition. AFFIRM E D.

3