Case Name: Anthony REED, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian WILLIAMS, Sr. and Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-23
Citations: 692 F. App'x 827
Docket Number: No. 15-17490
Parties: Anthony REED, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian WILLIAMS, Sr. and Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 827–828

Head Matter:
Anthony REED, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian WILLIAMS, Sr. and Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 15-17490
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 16, 2017 San Francisco, California
Filed June 23, 2017
Amelia Bizzaro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender, Las Vegas DC., Esquire, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant
Anthony Reed, Pro Se
Daniel M. Roche, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, AGNV—Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Respondents-Appellees
Before: SCHROEDER, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Anthony Reed appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition. We affirm.
The state court's determination that Reed's counselors were not constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to juror misconduct did not "result[ ] in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as. determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). There is no evidence that juror number 244 engaged in misconduct. Thus, there were no legitimate grounds upon which Reed's defense counselors could have objected. Thus, their decision not to object to did not fall "below an objective standard of reasonableness." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The remainder of Reed's arguments are not properly before us, because Reed raised them for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.