Case Name: Abelardo VELA, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-23
Citations: 221 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 06-15517
Parties: Abelardo VELA, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 221
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
Abelardo VELA, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-15517.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 16, 2007.
Filed Feb. 23, 2007.
David D. Martin, Esq., Alameda, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Nancy Hsiao-Hui Tung, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: RYMER and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and REED , District Judge.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Edward C. Reed, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Abelardo Vela, Jr. appeals the district court's order denying his federal habeas petition for ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 122 S.Ct. 587, 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001), upon which Vela relies, left open the question pertinent to Vela's case that was resolved in Samson v. California, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006). Furthermore, Knights does not entail that the manner in which the search was conducted was unconstitutional. Therefore, the California Superior Court's decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). This being so, Vela cannot have been prejudiced by his counsel's failure to move to suppress, nor is his guilty plea implicated. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.