NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T C UR T I S W. HE AL AN , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v. R A U L L O P E Z , W a r d e n , C o r c o r a n S ta te P r i s on R es po nd ent -A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 56559 D. C. No . 2 : 1 0 - c v 0 8 6 3 1 - J AK - PL A ME MORA ND UM *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn A . K r ons t a dt , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r7, 2012 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia 

# FI LED DE C 19 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

*** T he H onor abl e L a rry A . B urns , D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe U . S . D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof C a l i f orni a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

2 B ef ore: IK U T A and N G U Y E N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and B U RN S , D i stri ctJudg e. *** C alifo rn ia state p riso n erC u rtis H ea lan ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he C al i forni a C ou rtof A pp ea l ’ s dec i si on w as no t“ base d o n an unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n the S tate co u rt p ro ce ed in g ,” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )( 2 ), b ec au se th e trial ju d g e’s det erm i nat i on thatH ea l an’ s c ou nsel never f el l as l ee p d uri ng tri al , bu tfunct i on ed appr opr i a t e l ya nd c om pe t e nt l y , w a s s upport e d bythe e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a tthe h e a r in g , in c lu d in g th e ju d g e ’s o w n o b s e rv a tio n s o f c o u n s e l’s tr ia l p e r f

o rm a n c e . C f . D ow s v . W

ood , 211 F . 3d 480, 487 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( tr i a l j udge w a s i n good pos i t i on t o e va l ua t e a tt orne y ’ s a c tua l pe r f orm a nc e ) . H e a l a n ha s notr e butt e d the3

tr ia l c o u rt’s f

in d in g s b yc le a ra n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e . See 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . T he C al i forni a C ou rtof A pp ea l ’ s dec i si on w as nei ther “ contraryt o” no r an “u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f ” S u p r e m e C o u rt p r e c e d e n t. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . N o S u p rem e C o u rtcase h o l d s “ th atp rej u d i ce sh al l b e p resu m ed i n ci rcu m st an ces” w h e r e th e a tto rn e ym a yb e m e n ta llyim p a ir e d . D o ws , 21 1 F . 3d at48 4– 86 . G i ven the ov erw hel m i ng evi dence of H ea l an’ s gui l t , he has notshow n thathe w as p r e ju d ic e d b ya n ye rr o rh e n o w a s s ig n s to h is c o u n s e l. See Stri cklan d v. W as hi ngton , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 9 4 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . A FFI R M ED .