Case Name: Ronald Dennis BLAMEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY; State of California, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-06
Citations: 328 F. App'x 476
Docket Number: No. 08-16013
Parties: Ronald Dennis BLAMEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY; State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before PAEZ, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 476–477

Head Matter:
Ronald Dennis BLAMEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY; State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-16013.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 6, 2009.
Ronald Dennis Blarney, Vacaville, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Justain Riley, Brian G. Smiley, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA- Office of the California Attorney General (SAC), Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before PAEZ, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ronald Dennis Blarney, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, review the district court's ruling on a ha-beas petition de novo, Moore v. Czerniak, 534 F.3d 1128, 1135-36 (9th Cir.2008), and affirm.
Blarney contends that (1) the prosecution improperly failed to disclose evidence favorable to his defense; (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance; (3) his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance; and (4) evidentiary rulings by the trial court deprived him of the right to present a complete defense. We agree with the district court that even if the alleged errors were constitutional violations, Blarney cannot demonstrate he was prejudiced by any of the alleged errors by the prosecution, trial counsel, or appellate counsel. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 289, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 693-94, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We further agree that the California Court of Appeals reasonably determined that any alleged evi-dentiary error did not rise to a constitutional magnitude, and that even if it did, there was no prejudice. See Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 42-43, 52-53, 116 S.Ct. 2013, 135 L.Ed.2d 361 (1996) (plurality); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18-19, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.