Case Name: Kurt LEPPING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dean WILLIAMS, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-16
Citations: 682 F. App'x 597
Docket Number: No. 16-35369
Parties: Kurt LEPPING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dean WILLIAMS, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 682
Pages: 597–598

Head Matter:
Kurt LEPPING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dean WILLIAMS, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-35369
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2017
Filed March 16, 2017
Darryl L. Thompson, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Darryl L. Thompson, P.C., Anchorage, AK, for Petitioner-Appellant
Donald Soderstrom, Assistant Attorney General, AGAK—Office of the Alaska Attorney General (Anchorage), Anchorage, AK, for Respondent-Appellee
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alaska state prisoner Kurt Lepping appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011), arid we affirm.
Lepping contends that the state trial court deprived him of due process when it denied his motion for a continuance of his jury trial on charges of numerous Alaska fish and game violations. The Alaska state court's rejection of his claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964) (trial courts have broad discretion on matters of continuances, and only a "myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay" is constitutionally impermissible).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate, for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.