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 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). 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 PA U L LEE D RI V ER, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. J E N L A N D E R S , L in c o ln C o u n ty P r o b a t i o n Of

f i c e ra n d AA R ON F E L T ON , C hai r of the O re go n B oard of P ar ol e, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 35757 D. C. No . 6 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 3 4 4 - TC 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 orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon T hom a s M . C of

f i n, M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 9, 2011 ** P ort l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: F IS H E R , G O U L D , an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P et i t i on erP aul L ee D ri ver w as conv i ct ed i n O re go n st at e c ou rtof three coun t s of s exual abuse i n the fi rs tdegree. A l l three coun t s i nv ol ved a chi l d u nd er 

# FI LED JU L 22 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

th e a g e o f

1 4 . D r i v e rap p e a l s f

r o m th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s o r d e rd e n y i n g h i s 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 h ab e a s p e t i t i o n . We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C . § 2 2 5 3 , a n d we a f f irm . D r iv e r ’s p e titio n is g o v e rn e d b yth e A n tite rr o r is m a n d E f f e c tiv e D e a th P enal ty A ctof 19 96 (“ A E D P A ”) , P ub . L . N o. 10 4-13 2, 11 0 S t at . 12 14 . T here fore , D ri ver m ustshow thatthe l as tre as on ed O re go n st at e c ou rtdeci si on w as “ contrary t o, or i nv ol ved an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as d e te rm in e d b yth e S u p r e m e C o u rt o f th e U n ite d S ta te s .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f ah ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n . A l iv. Hi c km an , 5 8 4 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 8 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . D r i ve rc ont e nds tha tthe s t a t e tr i a l c ourtvi ol a t e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght of c onf r ont a t i on w he n i te xc l ude d e xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e of the c hi l d- vi c t i m ’ s pr i or a lle g a tio n s o f

s e x u a l ab u s e . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tly de t e rm i ne d tha tD r i ve rw a s note nt i t l e d t o habe a s r e l i e f . H e r e , D r i ve rdoe s not a r g u e th a t h e w a s d e n ie d th e o p p o rtu n ityto c o n f r o n t th e c h ild - v ic tim w itn e s s . I nde e d, D r i ve rw a s abl e t o c r os s - e xa m i ne the c hi l d- vi c t i m di r e c t l yaboutthe c l a i m e d pr i ora l l e ga t i on. R a the r , D r i ve ra r gue s tha tthe r i ghtof c onf r ont a t i on g u aran t eed b y th e C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se in c lu d e s th e r ig h t to p r e s e n t e x tr in s ic ev id en ce o f p rio r a ll eg atio n s o f s ex u al ab u se to im p ea ch th e c h il d -v icti m w itn es s’s3

c r e d i b i l i ty . U n d e rA ED PA , D r i v e rmu s tp o i n tt o c l e a r l ye s t ab l i s h e d Su p r e me C o u rt p r e c e d e n t to s u p p o rt th is a r g u m e n t. T o s upporthi s c l a i m , D r i ve rr e l i e s pr i m a r i l yon D avis v . A laska , 4 1 5 U . S. 3 0 8 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , D e la w a r e v . V a n A rs da ll , 475 U . S . 673 ( 1986) , a nd O lden v. Kentucky , 48 8 U . S . 22 7 (19 88 )( per c uri am ). A l tho ug h these ca se s r ec og ni ze the general pri nci pl e thata def

endanthas ari gh tt o cross -e xam i ne a c om pl ai nantor another a c c u s in g w itn e s s , n o n e d is c u s s th e a d m is s io n o f e x tr in s ic im p e a c h m e n t e v id e n c e . I n D a v is , the C ou rtexpl ai ned thatthe ri gh tof confront at i on “ m eans m ore than be i ng a l l ow e d t o c onf

r ontthe w i tne s s phy s i c a l l y , ” buttha t“ [ t ] he m a i n a nd e s s e nt i a l purpos e of

c onf r ont a t i on i s t o s e c ur e f

orthe oppone ntthe opportuni tyof c r os s - e xa m i na t i on. ” 415 U . S . a t315–16 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i on o m itte d ) . T h e r e , th e C o u rt h e ld th a t ad e f e n d a n t’s C o n f

r o n ta tio n C lau s e r ig h ts w er e vi ol at ed w hen h e w as proh i bi t ed fr om engagi ng i n cross -e xam i nat i on that w a s d e s ig n e d to “e x p o s e to th e ju ryth e f a c ts f r o m w h ic h ju r o r s . . . c o u ld approp ri at el y draw i nfer ence s r el at i ng t o the re l i abi l i ty of the w i tness . ” I d. a t318. I n V a n A rs da ll , the S upr e m e C ourtf ound aC onf

r ont a t i on C l aus e vi ol a t i on w he r e the tr i a l c ourtha d “ pr ohi bi t e d a ll i nqui ryi nt o the pos s i bi l i tytha t[ the w itn e s s ] w o u ld b e b ia s e d a s ar e s u lt o f th e S ta te ’s d is m is s a l o f h is p e n d in g p u b lic d ru n k e n n e s s c h a r g e . ” 4 7 5 U . S. at67 9. T he C ou rtthere fore hel d that“ a c ri m i nal4

defe nd antst at es a vi ol at i on of the C on fr on t at i on C l ause by show i ng thathe w as p r o h ib ite d f

r o m e n g a g in g in o th e rw is e ap p r o p r ia te c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n d e s ig n e d to show a prot otypi ca l form of bi as . . ” I d. a t680 F i na l l y , i n O lden , the S upr e m e C ourthe l d tha tatr i a l c ourt ’ s r e f us a l t o a l l ow th e d e f e n d a n t to im p e a c h th e v ic tim ’s te s tim o n yb yc r o s s - e x a m in in g th e v ic tim ab o u t ap o s s ib le m o tiv e to lie d e p r iv e d h im o f h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to c o n f r o n ta tio n . 4 8 8 U .S . a t 2 3 2 . T h e C o u rt e m p h a s iz e d th e c o r e o f its h o ld in g in V a n A rs da ll , n a m e lyth a t atr ia l c o u rt s h o u ld a c c o r d ac r im in a l d e f e n d a n t a re as on abl e opp ortun i ty t o con du ctcr oss- exam i nat i on thatm i gh tun derm i ne a w itn e s s ’s te s tim o n y . I

d. a t231–32. C o n tr a ryto D r iv e r ’s a s s e rtio n , th e s e c a s e s d id n o t c o n c e rn e x tr in s ic evi dence, bu tra ther i m peac hm entby cr oss- exam i nat i on . T he S up re m e C ou rthas ne ve rhe l d tha tthe C onf r ont a t i on C l aus e r e qui r e s , i n a ddi t i on t o c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, th e a d m issio n o f e x trin sic e v id en ce fo r th e p u rp o se o f e stab li sh in g a w itn es s’s m ot i ve t o l i e. T he abse nce of any c l earl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw vi t i at es a habeas c la im u n d e rth e A E D P A . Se e H ol le yv . Y ar bor ough , 56 8 F . 3d 10 91 , 10 98 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). B ec au se D riv erh as fa il ed to d em o n stra te th at th e s tate co u rt’s d e te rm in a tio n w a s “c o n tr a ryto , o rin v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r ly e s t abl i s he d F e de r a l l a w , ” w e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of habe a s r e l i e f

. 285

U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1); Kno w les v. Mi rz ayan ce , 556 U . S . 111, 129 S . C t . 1411, 1419 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ; s e e al

s o L oc k y e rv . A ndr ade , 5 3 8 U .S . 6 3 , 7 0

– 7 1 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . F in ally, w e n o te th at o n ap p ea l, D riv erd o es n o t ch allen g e th e d istrict co u rt’s or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s C om pul s oryP r oc e s s C l aus e c l a i m . W e the r e f or e c onc l ude th a t th e is s u e is ab a n d o n e d . Se e C ol l i ns v . C i t yof San D i ego , 841 F . 2d 337, 339 ( 9th C i r . 1988) ( “ I ti s w e l l e s t abl i s he d i n thi s C i r c ui ttha tc l a i m s w hi c h a r e not addres se d i n the appel l ant ’ s bri ef ar e dee m ed abando ned. ”) . A F F I R M E D .