T 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 a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2)(C ). 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 I S I AC NI C HO L AS R E NT E R I A, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. B E N C UR R Y, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 17708 DC No . 1 : 0 8 c v 0 1 2 0 9 AW I DLB ME MOR AN DU M *

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 E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A nthony W . I s hi i , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry 15, 2013 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: T A S H IM A , G R A B E R , an d F IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. I s i a c N i c hol a s R e nt e r i aappe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s pe t i t i on f orhabe a s c orpus pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2254. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . §§ 12 91 and 2 25 3. W e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a 

# FI LED JAN 31 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

p e titio n f o rh ab e a s c o rp u s . L opezv . T hom ps on , 20 2 F . 3d 11 10 , 11 16 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) . U n d e rth e A n tite rr o r is m a n d E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t o f 1 9 9 6 , R e n te r ia m ustshow thatthe st at e c ou rt ’ s dec i si on w as “ contra ryt o, ” or i nv ol ved “ an unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of , c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d F e de r a l l a w , a s de t e rm i ne d by the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es , ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1), before he i s e nt i t l ed t o r e l i e f . Be c a u s e h e c a n n o td o s o , w e a f f i rm. 1. R ent er i a’ s r i gh tt o p re se nta c om pl et e def ense w as no tvi ol at ed w hen he w a s notpe rm i tt e d t o i ntr oduc e e vi de nc e of thi r d- pa r ty c ul pabi l i ty . A l though s uc h e vi de nc e m us tbe a dm i tt e d w he r e i t“ ‘ r a i s e [ s ] ar e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e or pres um pt i on as t o [the defendant ’ s] ow n i nn ocence, ’ ” H olm e s v . South C ar ol i na , 547 U . S . 319, 323 ( 2006) , i ti s w e l l e s t abl i s he d tha tatr i a l j udge m a y e xc l ude evi dence of thi rd-party c ul pabi l i ty w here thatevi dence m er el y “ ca st [s ] a bar e s us pi c i on upon a nothe rorr a i s e s ac onj e c tur a l i nf e r e nc e a s t o the c om m i s s i on of the cr i m e by a no ther. ” Id . a t324. H e r e , the tr i a l c our tdi d notba s e i t s e xc l us i on of the evi dence of thi rd-party c ul pabi l i ty onl y on the stre ng th o f one si de’ s e vi dence, and i tw as no tun re as on abl e t o excl ud e the evi dence thatanother r ob beryw as co m m i tt ed i n th e area after R en t eri a h ad b een t ak en i n t o cu st o d y. 2. E ven i f w e a ss um e thata f re es t andi ng ac tual i nn ocence c l ai m ca n p r o v id e th e b a s is f

o rh ab e a s r e lie f

in s o m e c a s e s , s e e H

o u s e v . B e ll , 547 U . S . 518,- 3-

554- 55 ( 2006) , R e nt e r i a ’ s e vi de nc e of a c tua l i nnoc e nc e f

a i l s t o c l e a rthe “e x tr a o r d in a r ily h ig h ” th r e s h o ld , s e e H e r r e r a v . C ol l i ns , 5 0 6 U .S . 3 9 0 , 4 1 7 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . H e r e , the s t a t e tr i a l c our tor de r e d a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng a tw hi c h a nothe rm a n, R obe r tM e ndoz a , t e s t i f

i e d t o ha vi ng c om m i tt e d the c r i m e . T he tr i a l j udge f ound thatM endo za ’ s t es t i m on y l ac ked credi bi l i ty a nd deni ed R ent er i a’ s m ot i on for a n e w tr ia l. T h e r e is n o b a s is o n w h ic h to o v e r tu rn th e s ta te tr ia l c o u r t’s c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n , Kn a u b e r t v . G o ld s m ith , 79 1 F . 2d 72 2, 72 7 (9th C i r. 19 86 ) ( per c u r i a m) , a n d , th u s , n o b a s i s t o g r a n th ab e a s r e l i e f o n th i s c l a i m. 3. T h e p h o to g r ap h ic id e n tif ic a tio n p r o c e d u r e w a s n o t s o im p e rm is s ib ly sugg es t i ve as t o p rovi de a bas i s f or habeas re l i ef

. “ [E ] ac h cas e m ustbe consi dere d on i t s ow n f

a c t s . . . , ” a nd c onvi c t i ons ba s e d on pr e tr i a l phot ogr aphi c i de nt i f i c a t i on w i l l b e setasi d e “ o n l y i f th e p h o t o g rap h i c i d en t i fi cat i o n p ro ced u re w as so i m pe rm i s s i bl y s ugge s t i ve a s t o gi ve r i s e t o ave ry s ubs t a nt i a l l i kl i hood of i rr epar abal e m i si dent i fi ca t i on . ” Si m m on s v . U ni ted Stat es , 390 U . S . 377, 384 ( 1968) . T he s t a nda r d the s t a t e c our tus e d t o a s s e s s the pr opr i e ty of the i dent i fi ca t i on procedures w as no tm ea ni ng ful l y di ff er entfr om the Si m m ons s ta n d a r d . I

d. H er e, the ph ot og raph i c a rr ayw as , atm oston l y s l i gh t l y s ug gest i ve, i n thatthe form att i ng of R ent er i a’ s pho t o d i ff er ed fr om the form att i ng of the other f i ve phot os . T he s t a t e c our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe phot ogr aphi c a rr a y w a s not- 4-

i m pe rm i s s i bl y s ugge s t i ve w a s ne i the rc ontr a ry t o nora n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on o f f e d e r a l la w a s d e te rm in e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t. 4. N one of

the de f i c i e nc i e s tha tR e nt e r i aa l l e ge s w i th r e ga r d t o the p e r f o rm a n c e o f

h is a tto rn e y p r o v id e s ab a s is f o rh ab e a s r e lie f

. H e a lle g e s th a t h is a tto rn e y p r o v id e d in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e b y f

a ilin g to le t h im te s tif

y , a d v is in g h im a g a in s t ta k in g ap le ab a r g a in , a n d f a ilin g to o b

je c t to im p e a c h m e n t o f

D r . F r a s e r , a k ey d efen se w i tn ess. T h e tri al co u rtp ro p erl y i n q u i red i n t o each o f th ese c o m p la in ts . I t r e

je c te d R e n te r ia ’s a r g u m e n t a s to th e f ir s t tw o a lle g a tio n s , a n d it f ound tha tthe a tt orne y ’ s de f i c i e ntpe r f

orm a nc e w i th r e ga r d t o the thi r d w a s not pr e j udi c i a l . T he r e i s no ba s i s i n the r e c or d t o r e ve r s e a ny of the s e de t e rm i na t i ons on col l at er al re vi ew ; no ne i nv ol ved an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of fe dera l l aw as d e te rm in e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t. Se e U ni te d State s v . E dw ar ds , 897 F . 2d 445, 4 4 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ; Str i c kland v . W as hi ngton , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e j u d g m en to f th e d i stri ctco u rti s AF F I RME D.