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 a nd 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).

Th e H o n o r ab l e G o r d o n J . Q u i s t , Se n i o rD i s tr i c tJ u d g e f o rth e U . S. ** * D i s tr i c tC our tf

orW e s t e rn M i c hi ga n, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

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 G ERA RD O G RA D I LLA S, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. M A R T I N B I T E R , A c t i ng W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 56233 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 2 2 3 8 - J V S- CT 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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a m e s V . S e l na , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r12, 2012 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B e f or e : K L E I N F E L D a nd M c K E O W N , C i r c ui tJ udge s , a nd Q U I S T , S e ni or D i stri ctJudg e. *** 

# FI LED OC T 16 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSG e r a r d o G r a d illa s ap p e a ls f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n d e n y in g h is p e t i t i o n f o raw r i to f

h ab e a s c o rp u s . Re v i e w i n g d e n o v o , w e a f f i rm. G r a di l l a s a r gue s tha tthe tr i a l c our te rr e d by noti ns truc t i ng the j ury s ua s pont e on tr a ns f

e rr e d s e l f de f e ns e a nd tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l pr ovi de d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a n c e b y f

a i l i n g t o r e q u e s taj u ry i n s tru c t i o n o n tr a n s f e rr e ds e l f d e f e n s e . On di re ctre vi ew , the C al i forni a C ou rtof A pp ea l det erm i ned thatthe “ j ury w as p r o p e r ly in s tru c te d ,” “c o u n s e l r a is e d th e s e lf - d e f e n s e is s u e in c lo s in g a r g u m e n t,” and there w as “ no re as on abl e probabi l i ty the re sul tw ou l d h ave been m ore fa vo rabl e t o app el l anthad add i t i on al i nstruct i on s bee n g i ven o r a rgum ent s r ai se d. ” T h e C a lif

o rn iaS u p r e m e C o u r t d e n ie d G r a d illa s ’s p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . G ra di l l as pet i t i on ed for aw ri tof habeas corpus un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4 (as a m e nde d by the A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c tof 1996) . T he di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y de t e rm i ne d tha tthe C a l i f orni aC our tof

A ppe a l “ di d not c o m m it c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o rin c o n c lu d in g th a t [ G r a d illa s ] r e c e iv e d af a irtr ia l in s p ite o f th e la c k o f

atr a n s f e rr e d s e lf

- d e f e n s e in s tru c tio n ” a n d th a t G r a d illa s c o u ld no tes t abl i sh defi ci entperf orm ance and p re

j ud i ce un der Str i c kland . G ra di l l as has f a ile d to s h o w th a t th e s ta te c o u r t’s d e c is io n w a s “c o n tr a ry to ” o ra n “u n r e a s o n ab le appl i ca t i on ” of c l ea rl y e st abl i shed S up re m e C ou rtprec edentor thati tw as “ base d on an un re as on abl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s. ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d). AF F I RME D.