N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT R OB ER T M . RISE,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. PATRIC K GLEB E,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 15-35716 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-01218-M JP
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington M arsha J. Pe c hm an, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 6, 2017 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB E R , IKUTA, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. Pe titione r R obe rt M . R ise , a W a shington sta

te prisone r, a

ppe a ls thede nia l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha

be a s c orpus pe tition. Pe titione r wa s c onvic te d of c hild ra pe and c hild m ole sta

t ion. Afte r unsuc c e ssfully pursuing dire c t

a p pe a ls a n d c olla te ra l proc e e dings in sta

te c ourt, Pe titione r brought this ac tion. Thedistric t c ourt de nie d 

# F IL ED MAR 08 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation 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.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re lie f but c e rtifie d two issue s for a ppe a l
. 1 R e v ie wing de novo, R unninge a gle v. R y an, 686 F.3d 758, 766 (9th C ir. 2012), we a ffirm
. 1. Pe titione r c la i m s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c o unse l. He argue s tha t, if he ha d re c e ive d a c c urate a dvic e a bout his potentia l se nte nc e , he would ha ve sought
and a c c e pte d a

ple a de a l. The sta

te c ourt re je c te d this c la im

on them e rits on the ground tha

t, e v e n a ssum ing ba d a dvic e , Pe titione r fa ile d to show, a s re q uire d by the Supre m e C ourt, a " re a sona ble proba bility tha t, but for c ounse l’ s unprofe ssiona l
e rrors, the re sult of theproc e e ding would ha ve be e n diffe re nt." Stric k la n d v. W a shington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). No e vide nc e wa s pre s e nte d to thesta te
c ourt tha t the sta te prose c utor m a de or wa s willing to m ake a ple a offe r; tha t is, the re wa s no ple a

a gre e m e nt to lose . Se e La fle r v. C oope r, 566 U.S. 156, 168 (2012) (e xpla ining tha

t, " [i] f no ple a

offe r is m a de ," the issueof " e ffe c tive
a ssista nc e of c ounse l in c onside ring whe the r to a c c e pt it . . . sim ply doe s not
arise " ); C ulle n

v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011) (holding " that re vie w unde r § 2254(d)(1) is lim

ite d to there c ord tha

t wa s be fore the sta

t e c ourt tha

t a djudic ate d the c la i m on them e rits" ). The sta

te c o urt’ s ruling did not c onstitute an

1 Pe titione r brie fs a dditional unc e rtifie d issue s . The y do not m e e t the c rite ria for c e rtific ation, se e Sla c k v. M c Danie l, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000) (re quiring a " substa ntia l showing of the de nia l of a c onstitutiona

l right" ), a

nd, c onstruing the brie fing a s a

m o tion to c onside r those issue s, se e 9th C ir. R . 22-1(e ), we de ny the m otion. 2" unre a s ona

ble de te rm ination of thefa c t s in light of the e vide n c e pre s e nte d in the Stat e c ourt proc e e ding," 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(2), nor a de c i sion tha

t 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 i ne d by

the Supre m e C ourt of theUnite d State s," id. § 2254(d)(1). 2. Pe titione r a lso c la im s tha t the prose c utor im

prope rly vouc he d for the vic t im and e nga ge d in misc o n duc t during a rgum e nt to thejury . The sta te c ourt
re a s ona bly inte rpre t e d the prose c utor’ s c o m m e nts a s infe re nc e s from

the e vide nc e , rathe r tha n a pe rsona l e ndorse m e nt of the vic tim ’ s c re dibility . The sta te c ourt
re a s ona bly c onc lude d, too, tha

t the c ha lle nge d c om

m e nts, e ve n if que stiona

ble , did not re nde r the tria l unfa ir whe n ta ke n in c onte xt, whic h inc lude d c urative jury instruc tions. Se e Da

rde n v. W a inwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986) (e xpla ining tha

t

" [t] he re le va

nt que stion is whethe r the prose c utors’ c om m e nts 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 s s" (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks omitte d)). That a djudic ation wa s not a n unre a sona

ble
a pplic ation of c le a

rly e sta b lishe d fe de ra l la

w a nd the re fore doe s not wa

rrant re lie f unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). AFFIRM E D.

3