Case Name: Rodney BROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.W. FAIRMAN, Jr., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-27
Citations: 320 F. App'x 687
Docket Number: No. 06-55108
Parties: Rodney BROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.W. FAIRMAN, Jr., Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 687–688

Head Matter:
Rodney BROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.W. FAIRMAN, Jr., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-55108.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 27, 2009.
Rodney Brooks, San Diego, CA, pro se.
Donald J. Oeser, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los An-geles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Rodney Brooks appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, which challenged his jury-trial conviction for second-degree murder and assault with a firearm. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Brooks contends that the trial court erred, under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), by denying his two requests for self-representation because the requests were timely and were not made for the purpose of delay. We conclude that the California Court of Appeal's rejection of Brooks's Faretta claims was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2); see also Faretta, 422 U.S. at 885-36, 95 S.Ct. 2525; Marshall v. Taylor, 395 F.3d 1058, 1060-62 (9th Cir.2005); Hirschfield v. Payne, 420 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir.2005).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.