The Honorable Rosemary S. Pooler, origina lly a mem ber of this panel , did not * parti cip ate in t

he co ns ide rat ion

of thi s ap pe al. Th e tw o re m ain ingm em be rs o f t he pane l, who are in agreement, have determined the m atter. Se e 2d Cir. Internal Operati ng Procedure E(b) ; 28 U. S. C. § 4 6(d); United States v. Desimone , 140 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. 1998). Th e C ler k o f t he Co urt is r esp ect fu llydir ect ed

to am en d th e o ff

ici al c ap tio n to co nf

orm ** to the above. 1 08- 5478- pr Barnes v. Burge 1 UNITED STATE S COURT OF AP PEALS 2 FO R T HE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 3 4 SUMMARY ORD ER 5 6 RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HAV E P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A 7 S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J AN U ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY 8 THI S COU RT’ S LOCA L RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 AND FE DERA L RULE OF APP ELLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 . W HEN 9 CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A DO CUM ENT FI LE D W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE 10 E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L AP P ENDI X OR AN E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON 11 “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER M US T S ERVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY 12 P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . 13 14 At a stated Term of the United Stat es Court of Appeals fort he S ec on d Circuit, hel d at the 15 Daniel Patri ck Moynihan United St ates Courthouse , 500 Pearl Stre et, in the Cit y o f N ew York, on 16 the 21 day of April, two thousand and t en.

st 17 18 19 PRESENT : 20 21 DEBRAANN LIVING STON, 22 GERAR

D E. LYNC H, 23 Ci rcu it J ud ges. * 24 25

_____________________________________________________ 26 27 ARRELL O BARN ES, 28 29 Petitione r-Appellant , 30 31 -v- 08-5478-pr 32 33 JOHN BU RGE, Superintendent, Auburn Correc tional Faci lity, 34 35 Resp on de nt- Ap pe lle e . ** 36 372 1 FOR PETITION ER-APPELLA NT: J ONAT HAN S VETKEY , W att ers & Svetkey, LL P, Ne w 2 York, NY 3 4 FO R RES PO ND EN T- AP PE LL EE : U SHI R P A N D IT , Assistant D is tr ict Attor ney, Queens 5 County Distr ict Attorney’s Office, for Richar d A. 6 Bro wn , D istric t A tto rne y, Queen s C ounty (Jo hn M. 7 Castel lano, Assista nt Distri ct Attorney, on th e brie f ), 8 Kew Gardens, NY 9 10 Ap pe al f

rom the Un ite d St ate s Di str ict Co urt fo r th e E ast ern

Di str ict of Ne w Y ork

(G ara uf is, 11 J. ). 12 UP ON DU E C ON SI DE RA TI ON , it is hereby ORDERED , ADJUDGED , AND 13 DECRE ED that th e ju dg m ent of the dis tri ct c ourt b e AFFIRMED

. 14 Pe tit ion er- Ap pe llant Arrello Barne s ap pe als fr om a ju dg m ent of

the Un ite d S tat es D istric t 15 Court for the Eastern Districtof New York (Garaufis, J. ) de ny inghis petiti on fo r a writ

of ha be as 16 co rpu s f

ile d p urs ua

nt t o 2 8 U .S .C . § 22 54 . P eti tio ne r w as c onvic ted in 2 00 0 o n tw o c ounts of

m urd er 17 in the second de gree and two counts of robbery in the firstdegre e for his involvement in the ki lling 18 of Brian Boyd. The New Yo rks tate courts affirmed the convictions. Se e P eo plev. Ba rn es , 734 19 N. Y. S. 2d

893 (2d D ep ’t 20 01 ). Pet iti on er so ug ht ha be as re lie f on

vari ou s g rou

nd s, am on g whic h w as 20 the cla im

that he wa s d ep riv ed

of th e ef fe cti ve a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el at tri al i n v iol ati on of the Si xth 21 Am endment. See Strickland v. Washingt on , 466 U. S. 668 (1984) . W e granted a c ertificat e of 22 ap pe ala

bil ityso lel y on

cer tai n a sp ect s o f P eti tio ne r’s ine ff ect ive ass ist an ce c lai m . In bri ef , P eti tio ne r 23 argues that his trial counsel failed to i nterview seve ral of Petiti oner’s family mem bers, each of whom 24 wo uld

have tes tif

ied that he or s he wa s p res ent whe n Petitione r’s co-d ef en dant, his co us in J am es 2 5 Be nb o w , c o n f

e s s e d to th e m s h o rt ly a f te r t h e c ri m e th at h e h a d

c o mm itte d

th e m urd e r an d that 26 Pe tit ion er h ad

“n oth ingto d o w iththe sh oo tin g. ” App . 4 6. Be nb owfu rth er a lle ge dly

stated that 27 Petitione r, who was himself wounded during t he crime, was shot while exit ing a store near the3 1 shooting. Id. Co un sel d id sp eak to o ne su chwi tne ss, Jer

ris sic a F auntl ero y, wh o to ld h im that se ve ral 2 others were wil ling to offer similar te stimony. Id. Pe tit ion er a lso argue s th at h is t ria l co un sel wa s 3 in eff

ec ti ve be caus e h e fa il edto in ve st ig at e w he th erBe nb ow hi mse lf wo ul d te st if

y o n h is be ha lf

. We 4 assume the parties’ fam iliar ity with the remaining f acts, procedural history, and i ssues prese nted on 5 appeal. 6 “W e re vie w a dis tri ct co urt ’s de nia l of

a peti tio n fo r a wri t of

hab eas co rpu s deno vo .” Or tiz 7 v. N.Y.S. Parole in Bronx, N.Y. , 5 86 F. 3d 14 9, 155 (2d C ir. 20 09 ). “ Whe n [ a] state c ourt h as 8 ad jud icated the m eri ts o f [ a] pe tit ion er’ s cl aim, we a pp ly t he de fe rentia l st an dard o f r ev iew 9 est ab lis he d b y th e Anti ter ror ism an d E ff ect ive Death Penalt

y A ct o f 1 99 6 (A ED PA ), u nd er whic h 10 we m ay grant a wri t of habeas c orpu s on ly i f the state court's adjudicati on ‘was contrary to, or 11 involved an unre asonable appl ication of, cle arly est ablished Feder al la w, as det ermined by the 12 Su pre m e Co urt

of the Un ite d S tat es. ’” Do lph y v. Man tel lo , 552 F.3d 236, 238 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting 13 28 U. S. C. § 2 25 4(d)(1 )). To qu ali fy as an ad jud icatio n “o n the me rit s, ” “a st ate court de cis ion ne ed 14 no t m entio n a

parti cu lar

argum ent or

expla in the re aso ns f

or r eje cti ngit. ” Da lli o v . S pit zer , 343 F.3d 15 553, 560 (2d Cir. 2003). 16 Un de r Strickland, to establ ish ineffective as sistance of counsel, a habeas petit ioner must “(1) 17 demonstrate that hi s counsel’s p erf orm an ce f ellbe low an ob jec tiv e st an da

rd o f r easonableness in l ight 18 of pre va ili ngpro fe ssi on al n orm s; and (2) a ff irm ati ve ly p rov e p rej ud ice ari sin g f rom co un sel ’s 19 all eg ed ly d ef

ici ent re pre sentat ion .” Ca rri on v. Sm ith , 549 F.3d 583, 588 (2d Cir. 20 08) (quoting 20 Un ite d S

tates v . C oh en , 427 F.3d 164, 167 (2d Cir. 2005)) ( inte rn al quo ta ti onmarks om itted) . To 21 satisfy the “pe rformance” prong, “the record must demonstrate that c ounsel made errors so se rious 22 that counsel was not functioning as t he ‘counsel’ guaranteed t he defendant by the Si xth Amendm ent.” 23 Wil

so n v . Ma zzu ca , 570 F.3d 490, 502 (2d Cir . 2009) (quoting Strickland, 46 6 U. S. at 6 87 ) (i nte rna l4 1 qu otatio n m ark s o m itt ed ). “ In as ses sin g wh eth er co un sel ’s pe rf orm an ce w as o bje cti ve ly r eas on ab le, 2 we m

ust in du lg e a st rong presumption that couns el’s per form ance falls withi n the wide range of 3 rea so na

ble pro fe ssi on al a ssi stance. ” Brown v. Greene , 577 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (quot ing 4 Aparicio v. Artuz , 2 69 F. 3d 78 , 9 5 (2 d C ir. 20 01 )) ( int ern al q uo tat ion m ark s omitted). C ouns el’ s 5 omissions fall outside this range of reasonabl eness only if they “ ca nn ot be expla ine d c onvin cin gly 6 as result ing from a sound trial strate gy, but instead arose f rom oversight, carel essness, ineptitude, or 7 laz ine ss. ” Ez e v. Se nk ow ski , 321 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2003) (emphasis a dd ed). To satis fy the 8 “prejudic e” prong, Petit ion ermus t demonstrate that“there i s a reasonabl e probabili ty that, butfor 9 co un sel ’s unp rof

ess ion al e rro rs, the res ult

of th e pro cee din g w ou ld h av e b een dif fe rent.” Strickl and, 10 46 6 U .S . at 69 4; seealso Maz zu ca , 57 0 F .3 d at 50 2. In a sse ssi ngpre jud ice ste mm ingfr om

the fa ilure 11 to i nv est igate and

int roduce certain e vid en ce, a co urt m us t co ns ide r “ all

the rel ev ant ev ide nc e th at 12 the jur

y w ou ld h av e h ad

be fo re i t” h ad

the ev ide nc e b een

int rod uc ed , inc lud ingunf

av ora ble ev ide nc e. 13 Wong v . B elm on tes , 130 S. Ct. 383, 386 (2009) (per c uriam) (emphasis in original ). 14 1. Th e In ef fe cti ve As sis tan ce C lai m

Re gardi ngCo un sel ’s L ack of Inv estigati on

of Jam es 15 Benbow 16 17 W e g ranted a ce rti fi cat e o f a

pp eal ab ili ty i n th is c ase in p art on the iss ue wh eth er P eti tio ne r’s 18 co un sel ren de red

ine ff ect ive assi stanc e byfai lin g to inv est igate J am es B en bo w h im sel f a s a p ote nti al 19 witness. Se e Order of Apr. 17, 2009 (No. 08-5478-pr). A s Peti ti on erpr oc eeded pro s e before the 20 distri ct court, we cons true his habeas petit ion to raise the strongest arguments that it suggests. Se e, 21 e.g. , Ru iz-

Mar tin ez v . Mu ka sey , 5 16 F.3 d 10 2, 120 (2d C ir. 20 08 ); Brownell v. Krom , 446 F.3d 305, 22 310 (2d Cir. 2006). We conclude that t his clai m w as fa ir ly pr esented to t he distri ct court, butthe 23 record does n ot reveal whether it was e xhausted in st ate court

. Se e 28 U. S. C. §§ 22 54 (b) (1) (A ); 24 2254(b)(3). We may, however, deny the pe tition on the merits even if it r aises a cl aim that was not 25 exhausted. See id. § 2254(b)(2).5 1 W e co nc lud e th at, ev enass um ingPe tit ion er’ s co un sel’s fa ilure t o inve sti gate B en bo w a s a 2 wi tne ss f

ell be low an obje ctive stand ard of rea so na ble ne ss, Pe tit ion er i s una ble to s ho w t

hat hi s 3 co un sel ’s a lle ge d e rro rs r esu lte d in anyprej ud ice to him . Acc ord ingto t he af fi davit s o f P eti tio ne r’s 4 family

m em be rs, to who m

Be nb ow all eg ed ly c on fe sse d, Be nb ow wo uld have testified t hat “[Benbow] 5 sh ot [ the vic tim ] an d sh ot [ Pe tit ion er] by m ist ak e as he wa s co m ingout [ of ] t he sto re. . . . [ an d th at 6 Pe tit ion er] ha d n oth ingto d o w iththe sh oo tin g. ” F auntl ero y A ff . B en bo w h im sel f s wo re in an 7 affidavit executed s everal yea rs a fter t he cr ime and his convic tion that he had made this confession 8 to Pe tit ion er’ s fam ilyand th at Pe tit ion er “k

ne w no ne o f wh at ha

pp en [e d] and

[ that Benbow was] 9 wi lli ngto t est if

y o n h is b eh alf

.” Be nb owAf

f. Sh ort ly a ft er the cri m e an d p rio r to Pe tit ion er’ s tr ial , 10 however, Benbow m ade a stat ement to the police that dir ectly contradicts this propose d testimony. 11 Sp eci fi cal ly, Be nb owstated that P eti tio ne r “ ap pro ach ed th e vic tim

and [h ad ] w ord s w ithhim ,” that 12 the vic tim

“g rab be d” the Pe tit ion er an d “p us he d him b ack ,” and

th at a ft er a

str ug gle , P eti tio ne r sa id 13 to his cousi n “pull out the gun,” which apparent ly went off causing the vict im’s death. Gov’t’s Ex. 14 B. This statement obvio us ly c on fl icts with the notion conveyed by Benbow’s l ater al leged confession 15 — that Peti tioner was an i nnocent bystande r who knew nothing about the shooting. 16 Although Benbow’s state ment to the police would have be en inadmissible hear say on its own, 17 ha d B en

bo w t est if

ied at Peti tioner’ s tr ial in h is f av or, the statem ent co uld have be enint

rod uc ed to 18 impeach his credibil ity. See, e.g. , Pe op le v . R icc o , 43 7 N. E. 2d 10 97 , 1 09 9 (N .Y . 1 98 2); Wei ns tei n’s 19 Fe de ra l E

vid en ce§ 10 5. 06 [2 ] ( 2d

ed . 2 00 8). Li ke wi se, ha d B en bo w t est if

ied an d b een su bje ct t o 20 cro ss- ex am inatio n, th e C o n f ro ntati on Cl au se w ou ld n ot h av e b arr ed the int rod uc tio n o f t he statem ent. 21 Se e U

nited Sta tes v. Sh areef

, 19 0 F. 3d71, 78 (2d Cir . 1999). Here, had Benbow testi fied, the 22 pro sec uti on

co uld have cro ss- e x am in e d

h im re g ardin gh is p ri o r i n c o ns ist ent st ate m ent, w iththe ef fe ct 2 3 (at

b e s t f o r P e ti ti o n e r) o f

c a ll in g B e nb o w ’s c re d ib il it yi nto q u e s ti o n ; at w o rs t, th e s tate m en t co uld6 1 have been devast ating to Pet itioner ’s defense in the eyes of the jury. Cf., e.g. , Bruto n v . U nited 2 Sta tes , 3 91 U.S . 1 23 , 1 35 -3 6 ( 19 68 ) (c hara ct er iz in g st at eme nt s of co -d efe nd an ts admit ti ng th e c ri me 3 an d in cri m inatin g th e d ef en dant as “devastatin g” to a de fe nd ant); seeals o Gray v. Maryland , 523 4 U.S. 185, 192 (1998) (“[C]ertain powerfully inc riminating extra judicial statements of a codefendant 5 — those nam ingan oth er d ef en dant —

co ns ide red

as a cla ss, are so pre

jud ici al t hat li m iting 6 instruct ions cannot work.” ( internal quotation marks omitted) ). 7 Given that any t estimony Benbow m ight have gi ven would have bee n subje ct to impeachment 8 wi th ev ide nc e that w as i tse lf pre jud ici al t o P eti tio ne r, w e co nc lud e th at P eti tio ne r ha s n ot s ho wn that 9 the re w as a

“re aso na ble lik eli ho od ” th at h ad

his co un sel inv est igated

the po ssibility of

Be nb ow ’s 10 tes tif

yin g “th e res ult

of the pro cee din g w ou ld h av e b een dif fe rent.” Strickland, 46 6 U. S. at 6 94 ; see 11 als o B elm on tes , 130 S. Ct. at 386. 12 2. T he In ef fe cti ve A ssi stanc e Cl aim

R eg ard ingC ouns el’ s La ck of Inv est igatio n o f W itn ess es 13 Other than James Benbow 14 15 Because the st ate courtexpressly a ddressed thi s aspect of the i neffective assist ance claim on 16 the m erits in reject ing Petitioner’ s m otion to vacate his convic tion, see Barnes v. Burge , No. 03-CV17 14 75 , 20 08 WL 46 46 17 2, at *4 (E .D .N .Y . O ct. 20 , 2 00 8), we ap ply the AE DP A s tan dard o f r ev iew 18 to Petiti oner’s cl aim here. 19 W e co nc lud e th at the re jec tio n of thi s as pe ct o f P eti tio ne r’s ine ff ect ive ass ist an ce o f c ouns el 20 cla im

wa s n eithe r “c ontrary t o” no r an “unre aso na

ble applicatio n o f” Strickland or o the r cl ear ly 21 establi shed federal la w as set forth by the Supr eme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1). First , the 22 ev ide nc e th e w itn ess es w ou ld h av e p rof fe red would

have be enina dm iss ibl e h ear say . C ouns el’ s 23 intervi ew with Fauntleroy made it c lear that the onl y testimony these witnes ses would offer was of 24 anout-o f- co urt

stat em ent by P eti tio ne r’s cou sin intr od uc ed fo r th e tr uth of its co nte nt; thi s co ns tit

ute s 25 hearsay in New York. See, e.g. , Pe op le v Ro me ro , 5 81 N. E. 2d

10 48 , 1 05 0 (N .Y

. 19 91 ). B eca us e it7 1 wa s cl ear

any e vid en ce t

he wi tne sse s w ou ld p rov ide wo uld be ina dm iss ibl e, co un sel d id no t pe rf orm 2 below an objecti ve standard of rea sonableness i n failing t o pursue this line of testi mony either by 3 cal lin g F au

ntl ero y or investigati ng the other pr offered witnesses, all fa m ily m em be rs o f t he Pe tit ion er. 4 See, e.g. , Un ite d Sta tes v. S mi th , 1 98 F. 3d

37 7, 38 6 (2 d C ir. 19 99 ) (d eci sio n whe the r to cal l w itn ess es 5 an d wh ic hw it

n e s s e s to c a ll is w it

h in c o un s e l’ s d is c re ti o n ). M o re o v e r, b e c au s e th e w it n e s s es’ 6 ev ide nc e u lti m ate ly wo uld h av e be enina dm iss ibl e, Pe tit ion er c an pro ve no pre

jud ice fr om

co un sel ’s 7 having failed to investiga te furt her a fter hi s int erview with Fauntler oy. See, e.g. , Bobby v. Van Hook, 8 13 0 S. Ct

. 13 , 19 (2009) (percuriam) (counsel’ s failure to i nterview pote ntial witnesses did not 9 pre jud ice pe tit ion er b eca

us e p rop os ed

tes tim ony wo uld

not have ad de d anythi ngof va lue to d ef

en se)

. 10 Petitioner’s argum ents that th e p rof fe red ev ide nc e w ou ld h av e b een adm iss ibl e und er 11 ex cep tio ns to t

he he ars ayrul e ar e unava ili ng . For the co-def en dant’ s st ate m ent to have be en 12 adm iss ibl e as a decl aratio n ag ain st pe na l int ere st, Peti tio ne r wo uld need to h av e d em on str ate d th at 13 (1) the dec larant was unavailabl e as a witne ss attr ial; (2) when the statement was made the declar ant 14 “[was] aware t hat i t was adverse to his penal interes t;” (3) the declar ant had “competent knowledge 15 of the fa cts un de rly ingthe statem ent;” an d (4 ) “m os t im po rtant, su

pp ort ingcircumstances 16 independent of the st atement itself [were] present t o attestto i ts t ru st worthiness and r eliabil ity.” 17 Pe op le v . S

ettles , 385 N. E. 2d612, 619 (N.Y. 1978). Ini tiall y, the crit ical port ion of the state ment 18 Petitione r argues would be a dmissible — that Petitione r “ha d nothi ng to do with the shooting,” App. 19 46 — is no t dir ect ly in cu lpator y of the de clarant and

is the ref ore not ad m iss ibl e un de r Ne w Y ork ’s 20 penal in te res t excepti on. Se e P eo plev. En nis , 9 00 N. E. 2d 91 5, 11 N. Y. 3d

40 3, 41 3 (N .Y . 2 00 8). 21 Petitione r has also poi ntedto no “circ umstances independent of the hear say declar ation 22 its elf

. . . whic h f

air ly t en d to su

pp ort the ass ert ions made [ the rei n] an d th ere byass ure the ir 23 tru stw ort

hin ess .” Pe op le v . J

am es , 71 7 N. E. 2d

1 05 2, 1 06 2 (N .Y

. 19 99 ) ( em ph asi s om itt ed ). No r w as8 1 the statem ent li ke ly a dm iss ibl e und er N ewYo rk’ s co ns tit uti on al d u e pro ces s ex cep tio n to the he ars ay 2 rul e, ag ain

be cau se t he test im ony did

not be ar “s uf

fi cie nt in dic ia o f r eli ab ili ty. ” People v. Robinson , 3 679 N.E.2d 1055, 1059 (N.Y. 1997). 4 Second, as discuss ed abo ve , it is notan unreasonabl e conclusion t hat Petit ioner cannot 5 de m on str ate pre

jud ice be cau se, ev enha d th e f am ilym em

be rs’ tes tim ony b een

adm iss ibl e, Be nb ow ’s 6 hearsay d ec la ra ti onwou ldha ve be enimp eache d, to devastat ing effect, with Benbow’s prior statement 7 to the poli ce. See, e.g. , Pe op le v . D elv alle , 67 0 N. Y. S. 2d 8 27 , 82 8 (1s t D ep ’t 19 98) (hearsay 8 de clarant’s statem ent m aybe im pe ach ed thr ou ghthe int

rod uc tio n o f h is p ri o r i n c o n sis tent st ate m ent). 9 3. Petitione r’s Entit lement to an Evidentiary Hearing 10 Fi na lly , w e co nc lud e th at the dist ric t court di d no t abu se it s dis cre tio n in de cli nin g to ho ld an 11 ev ide nti ary

he ari ngon Pe tit ion er’ s in ef fe cti ve ass ist an ce c lai m . E ve n a ssum ingsu cha h ear ingwa s 12 not barred, see 28 U. S. C. § 2 25 4(e )(2 ), a qu est ion we ne ed no t ad dre ss, the de cis ion wh eth er t o 13 conduct a hearing was within the discr etion of the dist rict court. See Schriro v. Landri gan , 550 U.S. 14 46 5, 46 8 (2 00 7). It i s tr ue that w e h av e sa id t

hat a distric t co urt , a

bs ent “h igh ly u

nu su al 15 cir cum stanc es, ” sh ou ld a ff ord anop po rtunit

y to co un sel to exp lai n wh eth er he had a st rat eg ic b asi s 16 for m aking the chal lenged decis ions. Sp ar ma n v . E dw ards , 154 F.3d 51, 52 (2d Ci r. 1 99 8) (pe r 17 curiam ). B ut s uc h an e xp lan ati on is onl y neces sar

y whe n th e cl aim

of ine ff ect ive ass ist an ce i s 18 “serious enough to require an evidentiary hearing” in the first place. Un ite d S tates v . D uk

es , 727 F.2d 19 34 , 41 (2d C ir. 198 4). Su cha hear ingis “no t req uir ed on iss ue s th at c anbe res olv ed byref ere nc e to 20 the state c ourt r eco rd. ” Landrigan , 550 U.S. at 474 (quoting To tte n v . Me rkle , 137 F.3d 1172, 1176 21 (9t

h C ir. 19 98 )) ( int ern al q

uo tat ion m ark s om itt ed ). B eca

us e w e co nc lud e th at P eti tio ne r ha s f ail ed 22 to d em on str ate pre jud ice res ult ingfr om

co un sel ’s a ll e g e d

e rr o rs , anye v id e n c e re g ardin g whyco un sel 23 too k th e ac tio ns he di d would u lti m ate ly b e ir rel ev ant. T he dis tri ct c ourt the ref ore wa s w ith in i ts 24 discret ion to decli ne to conduct a he aring.9 1 4. Conclusion 2 For the foregoing re asons, the judgment of the distr ict courtis AFFIRMED. 3 4 FOR THECOURT : 5 Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk 6 7 8 9 10