Case Name: Steven Brent DICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sharon BLACKETTER, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-13
Citations: 378 F. App'x 754
Docket Number: No. 09-35739
Parties: Steven Brent DICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sharon BLACKETTER, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 378
Pages: 754–755

Head Matter:
Steven Brent DICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sharon BLACKETTER, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-35739.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 5, 2010.
Filed May 13, 2010.
Dennis N. Balske, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Jon Diehl, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner's evidence as a whole is insufficient to pass through the Schlup gateway, and therefore we may not reach the merits of his procedurally defaulted claims. See Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995). The police report describing the complaining witness's experience at the home of Arturo Zamarripa does not make it "more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted" Petitioner for sexual abuse. Id. Because the jury heard testimony regarding the complaining witness's grades and his parents' divorce, the complaining witness's deposition testimony addressing these issues does not constitute new evidence undermining the complaining witness's credibility. See id.; Cooper v. Brown, 510 F.3d 870, 884 (9th Cir.2007). Our analysis of what a "reasonable, properly instructed juror[ ] would do" in light of the new evidence is not altered by the fact that two jurors at Petitioner's trial voted to acquit. House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 538, 126 S.Ct. 2064, 165 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.