Case Name: Nicholas Marquez ESTABAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joe McGRATH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-01
Citations: 120 F. App'x 211
Docket Number: No. 03-57179
Parties: Nicholas Marquez ESTABAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joe McGRATH, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and WEINER, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 211–212

Head Matter:
Nicholas Marquez ESTABAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joe McGRATH, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-57179.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2005.
Decided Feb. 1, 2005.
Marilee Marshall, Esq., Marilee Marshall & Associates, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Jennifer Peabody, Esq., Pasadena, CA, William M. Wood, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and WEINER, District Judge.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
None of the issues raised by habeas petitioner Nicholas Marquez Estaban establishes that defense counsel's representation in his state court trial violated the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Specifically, we find the district court did not err when it determined that Estaban failed to show counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to: (1) present evidence of the alleged gunshot wound; (2) present evidence of intoxication; (3) give hospital records to the defense psychiatric expert; (4) investigate other crimes of the Ramos brothers; (5) introduce evidence of the August 18th incident; (6) impeach David Ramos' trial testimony; and (7) request an instruction on antecedent threats. Even if certain aspects of counsel's performance did fall below Stnckland's objective standard of reasonableness, it is not reasonably probable that Estaban was prejudiced by any such deficiencies.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.