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 by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c 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).

W e g ra n t R es p o n d en t’ s r eq u es t t o su b stitu te th e w ar d en o f P er ez ’s ** * curr entpri son, ra ther than the S t at e of C al i forni a, as the prop er l y- nam ed r e s p o n d e n t. 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 J OSE B ALDEM AR PE RE Z, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. F E RN A N D O G O N Z A L E Z , W a r de n, *** R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 16290 D. C . No . 1 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 6 6 2 - WQH 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 W i l l i a m Q . H a y e s , 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 r14, 2010 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an d C L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED JAN 05 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 16290 2 J os e B a l de m a rP e r e z appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt de 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 unde r28 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f i rm. P e r e z c ont e nds tha the w a s a rbi tr a r i l y de ni e d as t a t e l a w e nt i t l e m e nta nd the r e f or e hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d be c aus e the r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nt evi dence t o corrobo ra t e hi s a cc om pl i ce ’ s t es t i m on y r egar di ng the occurre nce of an att em pt ed robb ery. T he re cord i nd i ca t es thatthere w as corr ob orat i ng evi dence s uf f i c i e ntt o c onne c tP e r e z t o the c om m i s s i on of the a tt e m pt e d r obbe ry i n s uc h a w a y a s t o r e a s onabl y s a t i s f y the j ury tha tthe a c c om pl i c e w a s t e l l i ng the truth. L aboa v . C alde r on , 22 4 F . 3d 97 2, 97 9 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). P e r e z a l s o a r gue s tha thi s c ouns e l r e nde r e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e by f

a i l i ng t o o b j ectt o : th e u n sw o rn t est i m o n y o f a w i tn ess; th e ad m i ssi o n o f th atw i tn ess’ p rio r in co n sisten t statem en ts; th e c o m p eten cy o f th at w itn es s; an d th e trial co u rt’s det erm i nat i on of the w i tness ’ com pet encyw i tho uta s epar at e hea ri ng . P er ez has no tdem on stra t ed a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty thatthe j ud gm entw ou l d h ave been di ff er ent , had cou nsel obj ec t ed. T here fore , P er ez cann otes t abl i sh he w as p r e ju d ic e d b y c o u n s e l’s p e r f o rm a n c e . Se e Str i c kland v . W as hi ngton , 466 U . S . 668, 69 4 (19 84 ).09- 16290 3 I n s um , the s t a t e c ourt ’ s r e j e c t i on of

P e r e z ’ s c l a i m s w a s ne i the rc ontr a ry t o, no r an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw , no r an u n r e a s o n ab le d e te rm in a tio n o f th e f a c ts b a s e d o n th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d). AF F I RME D.