Court Opinion

ID: 9400822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 16:00:58.166741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.197450
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUN 9 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LONZELL J. THREATS,                             No.    21-16302

                Petitioner-Appellant,           D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00542-JAS

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
J.T. SHARTLE, Warden, named as Warden
Shartle,

                Respondent-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                    James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 7, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: MILLER and KOH, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,*** District Judge.

      Lonzell J. Threats (“Threats”) appeals the district court’s denial of his

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      ***
              The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for
the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which he brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after

being convicted of several crimes in a general court-martial and exhausting his

appeals in military courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.1

       We review the district court’s decision to deny the petition de novo. See

Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2011). We review the military

proceedings only to determine whether they “dealt fully and fairly” with the claims

raised in the habeas petition. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 142 (1953). “[O]nce

it has been concluded . . . that the military . . . dealt fully and fairly with all such

claims, it is not open to [us] to grant the writ simply to re-evaluate the evidence.”

Sunday v. Madigan, 301 F.2d 871, 873 (9th Cir. 1962).

       The military courts dealt fully and fairly with the sole claim that Threats

raises on appeal, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Threats

alleges six specific instances of ineffective assistance to support his claim, each of

which was aired in a post-conviction hearing in the military courts and discussed in

a detailed opinion by a military judge. The military judge found any instances of

ineffective assistance insufficient to show a violation of Threats’s right to effective

counsel, and the Army Court of Criminal Appeals twice affirmed. Threats has not

       Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we include them only as
       1

necessary to resolve the appeal.

                                             2
shown that the military courts failed to fully and fairly consider his claim. He

merely seeks “to prove de novo . . . precisely the case which [he] failed to make in

the military courts.” Burns, 346 U.S. at 146. 2

      AFFIRMED.

      2
        For the first time in his reply brief, Threats calls into question the adequacy
of the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. This argument is forfeited. See B&G Foods N. Am., Inc. v.
Embry, 29 F.4th 527, 541 n.7 (9th Cir. 2022).

                                           3