N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B R ANDON M . LONG, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. R IC HARD C OUR SEY, Supe rinte nde nt, Ea ste rn Ore gon C orre c tiona l Institution,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 16-35033 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-02139-SB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d M arc h 8, 2017 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, FISHER

and FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. B randon Long a

p pe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s c orpus pe t ition. W e hav e jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2253, a nd we
a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED MAR 17 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion 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 this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B randon Long wa s c onvic te d of one c ount of a tte m p te d first-de g re e ra

pe in viola tion of O R . RE V . S T A T . §§ 163.375, 161.405; two c o unts of a tte m p te d firstde gre e sodom

y in viola tion of O R . RE V . S T A T . §§ 163.405, 161.405; a nd two
c ounts of a

tte m pte d first-de gre e se xua l a buse in viola

tion of O R . R

E V . S T A T . §§ 163.427, 161.405. On two of the se c ounts, thesta te c ourt found upwa

rd de pa rture
se nte nc e s we re wa

rra nte d ba se d on c e rta in a ggravating fa c tors, inc luding tha t Long viola te d c ourt orde rs. Long a

rgue s tha t the c ourt viola

te d his right to jury fa c t finding unde r Blak

e ly v . W ashington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004), whe n it im pose d upwa rd de pa rture se nte nc e s an d tha

t he wa s de nie d c onstitutiona lly e ffe c tive
a ssista nc e of c ounse l unde r Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984), whe n his a ttorne y a lle ge dly fa ile d to a dvise him

of his B lak

e l y rights.

“ W e re vie w de novo the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of a pe tition for writ of ha be a s c orpus.” M

urray v . Sc hriro , 745 F.3d 984, 996 (9th C ir. 2014). Unde r the Antite rrorism

and Effe c tive De a th Pe na lty Ac t, a pe t itione r se e king ha

be a s re lie f
m ust de m onstra

t e tha t the sta t e c ourt’ s de c ision on the

m e rits wa s c o ntra

ry to, or involve d a

n unre a sona

ble a pplic a tion of, c le arly

e sta b lishe d fe de ra l la

w unde r Unite d State s Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt, or tha t the de c ision wa s ba se d on a n
unre a s ona

ble de te rm i nation of thefa c ts. Se e 28 U.S.C
. § 2254(d).

21. Assum ing a rgue ndo Long’ s Blak

e ly rights we re viola

t e d, the viola

tion
wa s ha rm le ss. Se e W

ashington v . Re c ue nc o , 548 U.S. 212, 215, 218 (2006) (holding Blak

e ly viola tions a re subje c t to ha

rm le ss e rror re vie w ); Unite d State s v . Salazar-Lope

z , 506 F.3d 748, 752 (9th C ir. 2007) (sa m e ). The inquiry

unde r the ha rm le s s e rror sta

nda rd is whe t he r “ in light of the

re c ord a s a

whole , ” the e rror

“ ha d substa

ntia l a nd injurious e ffe c t or influe nc e in de te rm ining thejury ’ s ve rdic t.” Bre c ht v . Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619, 637-38 (1993) (quoting K o tte ak os v . Unite d State s , 328 U.S. 750, 776 (1946)). Unde r that te st, ha

be a s re lie f is a

p propria te only if the c ourt is “ in gra

ve doubt a s to whe the r a jury would ha ve found the re le va

nt
a ggrav a t ing fa c tors be y ond a re a sona ble doubt.” B u tle r v . C

urry , 528 F.3d 624, 648 (9th C i r. 2008) (quoting O’N e al v

. Mc Aninc h , 513 U.S. 432, 436 (1995)). Unde r Ore gon la

w, a c ourt m ay

ba se an upwa

rd de pa rture se n te nc e on a single a ggravat ing fa c tor. Se eState v . Barre tt , 894 P.2d 1183, 1185 (Or. C t. App. 1995); State

v . W illiams , 883 P.2d 918, 919 (Or. C t. App. 1994). W he re , a s he re , a
c ourt m ak e s c le ar that e a c h of the a ggravating fa c tors indepe nde ntly justifie d the de pa rture , a Blak

e ly e rror will be ha

rm le ss if it is not pre

judic ia l a s to a

t le a s t one of the c ite d fa c t ors. Se e Barre tt , 894 P.2d a t 1185. The re c ord shows Long viola te d c ourt orde rs by

fa iling to e nroll in se x offe nde r tre a tm e nt for longe r tha n a we e k and by

hav ing c o nta c t with his c hildre n. 3Long sugge sts no re a son why the jury would not ha

ve found the s e viola

tions be y ond a re a sona

b le doubt. On this re c ord, the re fore , the re is no gra v e doubt the jury would ha ve found one or both of the s e a ggravating fa c tors. 2. Assum ing a

rgue ndo Long’ s tria l c ounse l’ s a l le ge d fa ilure to a dvise him of his Blak

e ly rights fe ll be low a

n obje c tive sta

nda rd of re a sona

ble ne s s, no pre j udic e re sulte d. Se e Stric k land, 466 U.S. a

t 694. The re is no re a sona ble proba b ility Long’ s se nte nc e would ha ve be e n diffe re nt but for his c ounse l’ s e rror, be c a use the re c ord shows a jury would ha ve found Long viola

te d c ourt orde rs, a

nd thus tha t a n a ggrav ating fa c t or wa s sa tisfie d. AFFIRM E D
.

4