Case Name: Cortez ELLIOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.A. LAMARQUE, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-14
Citations: 205 F. App'x 606
Docket Number: No. 05-55593
Parties: Cortez ELLIOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.A. LAMARQUE, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 205
Pages: 606–607

Head Matter:
Cortez ELLIOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.A. LAMARQUE, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 05-55593.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.
Filed Nov. 14, 2006.
Cortez Elliott, Stephen M. Lathrop, Esq., Soledad, CA, Lathrop & Villa, Rolling Hills Estates, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Joseph P. Lee, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Cortez Elliott appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition on the merits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we affirm.
Elliott contends that the government's refusal to grant immunity to potential defense witnesses, where key prosecution witnesses were granted immunity, violated due process and his right to a fundamentally fair trial. We conclude, however, that the state court's decision in this case was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
We strike the pro se brief of Alfred Eugene Shallowhorn, received on September 11, 2006.
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.