Case Name: Edward F. GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian D. TRAVIS, Chairman, New York State Division of Parole, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-17
Citations: 45 F. App'x 83
Docket Number: Docket No. 01-2711
Parties: Edward F. GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian D. TRAVIS, Chairman, New York State Division of Parole, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 45
Pages: 83–84

Head Matter:
Edward F. GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian D. TRAVIS, Chairman, New York State Division of Parole, Respondent-Appellee.
Docket No. 01-2711.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Sept. 17, 2002.
Yuanchung Lee, The Legal Aid Society, Federal Defender Division, Appeals Bureau, New York, NY, for Appellant.
John J. Sergi, Assistant District Attorney of the County of Westchester (Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney of the County of Westchester, on the brief, Joseph M. Latino, Assistant District Attorney, of counsel), White Plains, NY, for Appellee.
Present JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges, and GERARD E. LYNCH, District Judge
The Honorable Gerard E. Lynch, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
Petitioner Gonzalez timely appeals from the District Court's Opinions and Orders entered November 2, 2001, and Judgment entered November 6, 2001, which denied the petition for habeas corpus.
The District Court having granted a certificate of appealability, petitioner claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his state trial, when trial counsel failed to locate a witness who would have corroborated petitioner's explanation of how he disposed of the victim's money, and that the District Court erred when it rejected his Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) claim, based on the prosecution's failure to disclose that a potential witness provided information to another prosecutor corroborating petitioner's explanation of how the victim's money was lost.
Plaintiff raises the same issues on appeal.
We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its Opinion and Order entered November 2, 2001. See Gonzalez v. Travis, 2001 WL 1352461 (S.D.N.Y.).
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.