Rountree v. Tilton
Sababu Badili ROUNTREE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James E. TILTON, Acting Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Robert A. Horel, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Susan Graber, Edward Leavy
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SABABU BADILI ROUNTREE, No. 08-55272 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-06-01204-IEG v. MEMORANDUM * JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted June 29, 2010 ** Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Sababu Badali Rountree appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 2253, and we affirm.
Rountree contends that trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to order testing of the victim’s clothing for gunshot residue; (2) failing to obtain an expert witness to testify regarding the mental state of the key eyewitness to the shooting;
and (3) failing to investigate the possibility of introducing experimental evidence regarding how long the hood of Rountree’s car, found near the crime scene, would have stayed warm given weather conditions on the night of the crime. The record indicates that the state court’s rejection of these claims was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
Rountree further contends that the trial court violated his due process rights by admitting propensity evidence. As Rountree concedes in his reply brief, this contention is foreclosed by Alberni v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 863-67 (9th Cir.
2006). See Mejia v. Garcia, 534 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-55272