Case Name: Michael WOODS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derral G. ADAMS, Warden, Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-27
Citations: 429 F. App'x 658
Docket Number: No. 09-56373
Parties: Michael WOODS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derral G. ADAMS, Warden, Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 429
Pages: 658–659

Head Matter:
Michael WOODS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derral G. ADAMS, Warden, Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-56373.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 15, 2011.
Filed April 27, 2011.
Donald M. Horgan, Dennis P. Riordan, Riordan & Horgan, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Susan E. Miller, Esquire, Kevin Vienna, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for RespondentAppellee.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The district court did not err in denying Woods's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The California Court of Appeal's conclusion that Woods had failed to establish prejudice because he was able to get virtually all of Sheridan's statements into evidence through other witnesses was not unreasonable. See United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867, 102 S.Ct. 3440, 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982).
The California Court of Appeal's determination that the trial court properly permitted Sheridan to claim his Fifth Amendment privilege was similarly not in error. See Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 326, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 143 L.Ed.2d 424 (1999) ("Where the sentence has not yet been imposed a defendant may have a legitimate fear of adverse consequences from further testimony.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.