Case Name: Eric John HASELTON, Petitioner- Appellant, v. Claude FINN, Warden, Respondent- Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-31
Citations: 194 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 05-16892
Parties: Eric John HASELTON, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Claude FINN, Warden, Respondent— Appellee.
Judges: Before: T.G. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
Eric John HASELTON, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Claude FINN, Warden, Respondent— Appellee.
No. 05-16892.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 27, 2006.
Decided July 31, 2006.
John Ward, Esq., Law Offices of John Ward, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Marcia A. Fay, Esq., Brian Means, 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
Eric John Haselton (Haselton) fails to demonstrate that "an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance." Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1183 (9th Cir.2005), as amended (citation omitted).
The district court properly denied Haselton's habeas petition, as the California Court of Appeal's finding of no actual con flict was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law. See Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 986 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that the United States Supreme Court has never held that joint representation of criminal co-defendants automatically constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.