N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SER GIO OC T AVIO PENA, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. JAM ES E. TILTON, in his c a pa c ity a s He a d of the C a l ifornia

De pa rtm e nt of C orre c tions, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 11-15003

D.C . No. 4:07-c v-02119-PJH M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Phy llis J. Ha

m ilton, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 10, 2014 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, FER

NANDEZ, a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. Se rgio Oc tavio Pe na a

p p e a ls thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his pe tition for ha be a s c orpus, brought pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2254. 

# FIL ED JUN 12 2014 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Pe na

first a rgue s tha t the sta te c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t the a d m ission of ga ng-re late d e vide nc e did not viola te his fe de ra l due proc e ss rights wa s c ontra ry to c le arly e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w. B ut theSupre m e C ourt ha s ne v e r issue d a “ c le ar ruling tha t a d m ission of irre le va

nt or ove rtly

pre judic ia l e vide nc e c onstitute s a due proc e s s viola

tion suffic ie nt to wa

rrant issua

nc e of the writ.” Holle

y v . Yarborough , 568 F.3d 1091, 1101 (9th C ir. 2009). Daw son v . De law a rehe ld tha

t the a dm ission of sa n itiz e d ga ng e vide nc e during se nte nc ing viola te d the First Amendme nt . 503 U.S. 159, 168 (1992). So the re wa s no c le arly

e sta b lishe d fe de ra l la w for the sta

te c ourt’ s de te rm ination to c ontra v e ne . Pe na ne xt c o nte n d s tha

t the sta te tria l c ourt’ s fa ilure to provide c e rta i n jury instruc tions viola

te d his rights to a

jury tria l a nd to due proc e ss. He doe s not dispute , howe ve r, tha

t he proc e dura lly

de fa ulte d this c la im . To e x c use his proc e dura l de fa ult, Pe na m a inta ins tha

t his a p pe lla te c ounse l re nde re d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e by fa i ling to raise the issue on dire c t a ppe a l. The re is, a t le a st, a re a sona ble a rgum e nt tha

t a ppe lla te c ounse l ’ s de c i sion—

to om it a we ak issuetha

t would ha

ve unde rm ine d Pe na ’ s prim ary argum e nt on a

ppe a l— wa s not c onstitutiona

lly unre a sona

ble . Se eMille r

v . K e e n e y , 882 F.2d 1428, 1434 (9th C ir. 1989). Given the “ doubly ” de fe re ntia l sta nda rd of re vie w, Harrington v.

2Ric h te r , 131 S. C t. 770, 788 (2011), we c annot sa y tha t the sta te c ourt unre a s ona

bly a pplie d Stric k

l a nd v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). B e c a use Pe na c annot de m onstra

te c a use to e xc use his proc e dura l de fa ult, we will not re vie w the jury

instruc tion issue . Se eC

ole m an v . Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 729–30 (1991). 1 AFFIRM E D.

1 W e de c line to a ddre ss Pe na ’ s unc e rtifie d c um ulative e rror argum e nt. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c ); Hiiv ala v . W ood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104–05 (9th C ir. 1999). 3