Case Name: John Brandon LACEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy KIRKEGARD and Attorney General for the State of Montana, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-01
Citations: 615 F. App'x 434
Docket Number: No. 13-35917
Parties: John Brandon LACEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy KIRKEGARD and Attorney General for the State of Montana, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 434–435

Head Matter:
John Brandon LACEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy KIRKEGARD and Attorney General for the State of Montana, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 13-35917.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
John Brandon Lacey, Deer Lodge, MT, pro se.
C. Mark Fowler, Assistant Attorney General, State of Montana Office of the Attorney General, Tammy K Plubell, Esquire, AGMT-Office of the Montana Attorney General, Helena, MT, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
Montana state prisoner John Brandon Lacey appeals pro se 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 de novo a district court's denial of a section 2254 habeas corpus petition, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.
Lacey contends that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated by the approximately eight-and-a-half year delay between the issuance of the warrant for his arrest and his arrest. The state court was reasonable in its factual determination that Lacey took deliberate actions to conceal his whereabouts in order to avoid prosecution, and that his assertions to the contrary were not credible. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), (e)(1); Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984, 1001 (9th Cir.2014). Accordingly, the state did not violate Lacey's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. See United States v. Sandoval, 990 F.2d 481, 483 (9th Cir.1993) (defendant waives right to speedy trial when he seeks to avoid detection by authorities).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R, 36-3.