Case Name: Eric D. RICE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cheryl PLILER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-27
Citations: 192 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 05-16642
Parties: Eric D. RICE, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Cheryl PLILER, Respondent — Appellee.
Judges: Before: T.G. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 192
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
Eric D. RICE, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Cheryl PLILER, Respondent — Appellee.
No. 05-16642.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 25, 2006.
Filed July 27, 2006.
Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner — Appellant.
David A. Eldridge, Esq., Sacramento, CA, for Respondent — Appellee.
Before: T.G. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Because the record reasonably indicates that Rice was not incompetent during his criminal proceedings in state court, the California Court of Appeal decision holding that there was "no showing" by Rice of mental incompetence was not objectively unreasonable. See Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 742 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam); see also Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1038, 125 S.Ct. 809, 160 L.Ed.2d 605 (2004). Accordingly, Rice is not entitled to habeas relief on his procedural and substantive due process claims. See Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 603-06, 608-09 (9th Cir.2004), as amended.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.