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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 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 AR MOND O S HE L B Y, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. KE NN E T H Q UI NN , R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 35695 D. C . No . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 5 4 6 6 - B HS 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 W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on B e nj a m i n H . S e tt l e , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d June 10, 2010 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: C A N B Y , C A L L A H A N an dIK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A rm ondo S he l by( “ S he l by ” ) appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s pe t i t i on f orhabe a s c orpus . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . §§ 1291 a nd 2253, a n dw e a f

f irm . 

# FI LED JU N 15 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

T h is c a s e is g o v e rn e db yth e A n ti- T e rr o r is m a n dE f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t o f 1 9 9 6 ( “A E D P A ” ) , a n d , a c c o r d in g ly , w e m a yg r a n t r e lie f o n lyif “th e s ta te courtadj ud i ca t i on of the m er i t s of acl ai m ‘ (1) r es ul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as contraryt 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 a w , a s de t e rm i ne d bythe S upr e m e C ourtof the U ni t e d S t a t e s ; or( 2) r e s ul t e d i n a de c i s i on tha tw a s ba s e d on a n unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ghtof the evi dence pres ent ed i n the S t at e c ou rtproceedi ng . ’ ” D ow s v . W ood , 211 F . 3d 4 8 0 , 4 8 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o tin g 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ) . T h e las t rea so n ed state c o u rt d ec isio n is th e W as h in g to n S up re m e C o u rt’s d e n ia l o f d is c r e tio n a ryr e v ie w is s u e db yits C o m m is s io n e r . Se e B arke rv . Fle m i ng , 4 2 3 F .3 d1 0 8 5 , 1 0 9 1 (9 thC ir. 2 0 0 5 ); W as h . A p p . R . P . 1 .1 (f ). T h e c o u rt’s c onc l us i on tha tS he l byf a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h avi ol a t i on of hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght to c o n f lic t- f r e e c o u n s e l is n o t c o n tr a ryto , o rth e r e s u lt o f a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f

, c le a r lye s tab lis h e df

e d e r a l la w a s d e te rm in e db yth e S up r e m e C o u rt. T o est abl i sh a vi ol at i on of the S i xth A m endm entri gh tt o con fl i ct -f re e c o u n s e l, ad e f

e n d a n t m u s t s h o w th a t a n a c tu a l c o n f lic t o f in te r e s t “a d v e r s e ly af fe ct ed hi s c ou nsel ’ s per form ance . ” Mi c ke ns v . T ay lor , 535 U . S . 162, 171- 72 & n. 5 ( 2002) ( c i t i ng C uy le rv . Sul l i v an , 4 4 6 U .S . 3 3 5 , 3 4 9 - 5 0 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ) . “U n til . . .3

defe nd antshow s thathi s c ou nselac t i vel y r epre se nt ed confl i ct i ng i nt er es t s, he has no tes t abl i shed the “ const i tut i on al predi ca t e f or hi s c l ai m . ” Id . a t 1 7 5 . B e c aus e S he l byha s notde m ons tr a t e d tha thi s i nt e r e s t s a nd thos e of the po t ent i al w i tness w er e a ctual l y a dv er se t o o ne another, he has notshow n that coun se l “ ac t i vel y r epre se nt ed confl i ct i ng i nt er es t s. ” Id .; c f . H ol low ayv . A rkans as , 4 3 5 U . S . 4 7 5 (1 9 7 8 ) (rev ersi n g th e co n v i ct i o n s o f th ree co -d efen d an t s w h o se co u n se l w as fo rc ed to re p re se n t allo f th em at a jo in t trial d es p it e c o u n se l’ s o b je c tio n s ab o u t th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ d iv e r g e n t in te r e s ts ) ; Sul l i v an , 446 U . S . a t349- 50 ( r e m a n d in g f

o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s w h e r e c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n te dm u ltip le d e f e n d a n ts c ha r ge d w i th the s a m e c r i m e ) . M or e ove r , S he l byha s of f e r e d no e vi de nc e dur i ng th e p o s t- c o n v ic tio n p r o c e e d in g s to s h o w th a t c o u n s e l’s d e c is io n n o t to c o n du c t a f ol l ow - up i nt e rvi e w ort o ha ve the w i tne s s t e s t i f ya ttr i a l w a s unr e a s onabl e or a d v e r s e lya f

f e c te dth e r e p r e s e n ta tio n . Se e Mi c ke ns , 5 3 5 U .S . a t 1 7 1 - 7 2 . T h e r e is n o c le a r lye s tab lis h e dS u p r e m e C o u rt d e c is io n r e q u ir in g u s to g r a n t r e lie f o n th is r e c o r d . A F F I R M E D .