Case Name: Alan HAHN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas BIRKETT, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-18
Citations: 97 F. App'x 627
Docket Number: No. 03-1095
Parties: Alan HAHN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas BIRKETT, RespondentAppellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 97
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
Alan HAHN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas BIRKETT, RespondentAppellee.
No. 03-1095.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 18, 2004.
Gary T. McEntee, Attorney at Law, Lansing, MI, for Petitioner-Appellant. .
Janet A. Van Cleve, Office of the Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: COLE and COOK, Circuit Judges; and SPIEGEL, District Judge.
The Honorable S. Arthur Spiegel, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner-Appellant Alan Hahn was convicted by a jury of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, in violation of Michigan state law, M.C.L. § 750.520(c)(1), in connection with the sexual assault of a ten-year-old boy. Hahn was sentenced to eight to fifteen years' imprisonment. On June 15, 2001. Hahn filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging several defects in his trial. The district court denied the petition but granted a certificate of appealability with respect to several issues: (1) Hahn's prosecutorial misconduct claim; (2) ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel claims; and (3) a claim based on cumulative error as a result of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Having studied the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the district court should be AFFIRMED. Even assuming that Hahn had not defaulted on his prosecutorial and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel claims in the state courts, we find that the substance of those claims is without merit.