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 LAS R AM OS B R

A VO, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. JERI TAYLOR , R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 15-35072

D.C . No. 2:13-c v-01048-M A 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 M a lc olm F. M arsh, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h 11, 2016 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : B ER

Z ON a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s , a nd WALTER , Se nior Distric t Judge . ** 

# FIL ED MAR 28 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Dona ld E. W a lte r, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de signa t ion.Pe titione r-Appe lla nt B l a s B ravo (“ Pe titione r” ), an Ore gon sta te prisone r, a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s c orpus pe tition. W e a ffirm . Pe titione r wa s c o nvic te d, a fte r a jury tria l, of se c ond-de gre e se xua l a buse , in viola tion of Or. R e v. Stat. § 163.425, a n d ta m pe ring with a witne s s, in viola tion of Or. R e v. Stat. § 162.285. The form e r c onvic tion a rose out of Pe titione r’ s se x ua l re lationship with a

n unde ra ge fe m a le . B y

a spe c ia l ve rdic t form , the jury a lso found thre e a ggravating fa c t ors, upon whic h the State ultim at e ly sought upwa

rd de pa rture se nte nc e s. None of those fa c tors we re re lat e d to the vic t im ’ s a ge . The se nte nc ing c ourt im

pose d the re que ste d de pa

rture se nte n c e s of 60 m onths’ inc a rc e ra tion, a s to e a c h

c o unt, to bese rve d c onse c utive l y to e a c h othe r and to a pre v iously

im pose d 200-m onth se nte nc e a lre a dy be ing se rve d by

Pe titione r. In his fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition, Pe titione r a lle ge d, inte r alia , tha t the se nte nc ing c ourt im

prope rly use d, or re lie d upon, thevic tim ’ s a ge a s a n a ggrav at ing fa c tor in im

p osing depa

rture se nte nc e s a

nd tha t de fe nse c ounse l re nde re d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l by

fa iling to obje c t to these nte nc ing c ourt’ s use the re of. The distric t c ourt de nie d the pe tition but gra nte d a c e rtific ate of a ppe a la bility on the issue now be fore us: whe the r de fe n se c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive

2in fa iling to obje c t to the se nte nc ing c ourt’ s re fe re nc e to the vic t im ’ s a ge a s a n e nha nc e m e nt fa c tor at se nte nc ing. B e c a use the sta

te post-c onvic tion c ourt de c ide d B ravo’ s ine ffe c tive ne ss c la im on the m e rits, hec an pre va il on his ha be a s c la im

only if he c a

n show tha

t the a djudic ation “ re sulte d in a de c ision tha t wa s c ontra

ry to, or involve d

an unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of, c le arly

e sta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d State s .” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). R e ga rding e ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l, unde r the Antite rrorism and Effe c tive De ath Pe na lty Ac t (“ AEDPA” ), “ [t] he pivota l que stion is whe the r the sta te c ourt’ s a

pplic ation of the Stric k land sta nda rd wa s unre a sona

ble .” H arrington v. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011). “ For purpose s of § 2254(d)(1), ‘ a n unre asonable a

pplic ation of fe d e ra l la

w is diffe re nt from

an inc orre c t

a pplic ation of fe de ra l la

w.’ ” Id. (quoting W

illiams v . Tay lor , 529 U.S. 362, 410 (2000)). AEDPA “is a diffic u lt to m e e t a

nd highly de fe re ntia l sta

nda rd for e va l uating sta

te -c ourt rulings, which de m an ds tha t sta te -c ourt de c isions begive n the be n e fit of the doubt.” C ulle n v . Pinholster , 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011) (c ita t ions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d ). The sta te post-c o nvic tion c ourt’ s de nia l of re lie f a fte r a pply ing Stric k

land wa s not unre a sona

ble . R e a d in c onte xt, the se nte nc ing c ourt’ s m e ntion of the vic t im ’ s a ge did not e quate to im pe rm i ssible re lia

nc e the re o n

a s a n a ggravat ing 3fa c t or. C ounse l for both Pe t itione r and the Stat e a c knowle dge d, prior to thec ourt’ s

se nte nc ing c olloquy , the im p a c t of the vic tim ’ s a ge on the fa c ts of this c a se . In re sponse , the c ourt a lso a c knowle dge d the vic tim ’ s a g e whic h, in this c a se , is the fa c t tha t c a use d Pe titione r’ s a c tions to be a c rim ina l viola

tion of Or. R e v. Stat. § 163.425. The c ourt the n e xplic i tly a dopte d the findings of the jury , a s to the thre e a ggrav at ing, non-a ge -re lat e d fa c tors. It is undispute d tha t, on the ba sis of those fa c t ors a l one , the se nte nc ing c ourt wa s le g a l ly a uthoriz e d to de pa rt from the pre s um ptive se nte nc e . Unde r Blak e ly v . W ashington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004), the de te rm i native que stion is: c ould thejudge have im pose d the se nte nc e give n, sole ly on the ba sis of thefa c ts a dm itte d or found by a jury ? Se e 542 U.S. a

t 303-04. He re , the a nswe r is y e s. The re fore , c ounse l’ s fa i lure to obje c t wa s not obje c tive ly unre a s ona

ble , nor did it pre

judic e the proc e e dings. Thepost-c onvic tion c o urt’ s c onc lusion tha

t tria l c ounse l wa s not c onstitutiona lly ine ffe c tive is ne ithe r c ontra ry to, nor a n unre a s ona

ble a pplic ation of, c le arly

e sta b lishe d fe d e ra l la w. 28 U.S.C . § 2254 (d)(1); se ealso W

illiams, supra, 529 U.S. a t 386 (AEDPA plainly

sought to e nsure de fe re nc e to the de te rm inations of sta te c ourts whic h

ne ithe r c onflic t with fe de ra l la w nor a pply fe de ra l la w in a n unre a sona

ble wa y ). W e a c c ordingly

a ffirm the d istric t c o urt’ s de nia l of B ravo’ s ha be a s pe tition. AFFIRM E D. 4