Case Name: Gary Gene WATTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig FARWELL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-18
Citations: 371 F. App'x 767
Docket Number: No. 08-16476
Parties: Gary Gene WATTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig FARWELL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 371
Pages: 767–768

Head Matter:
Gary Gene WATTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig FARWELL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-16476.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 9, 2010.
Filed March 18, 2010.
Debra Bookout, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Robert E. Wieland, Esquire, Senior Deputy Attorney General, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Reno, NV, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Gary Gene Watts, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction by guilty plea for three counts of sexual assault of a minor. We review de novo, Tilcock v. Budge, 538 F.3d 1138, 1143 (9th Cir.2008), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 926, 173 L.Ed.2d 132 (2009), but habeas relief is warranted only if the state court's decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law[] as determined by the Supreme Court," or resulted in "an unreasonable determination of facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding[s]," 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(l)(2); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 407-09, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).
Defendant failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest. He points to no evidence, and the record contains none, that his counsel's alleged conflicts "actually affected the adequacy of his representation." Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348-49, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). Therefore, Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated.
Defendant has abandoned or waived the issue of whether his guilty plea was voluntary, so we do not address it on the merits.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.