Newsome v. Scribner
Mario Arron NEWSOME, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry SCRIBNER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Raymond C. Fisher
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 23 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO ARRON NEWSOME, No. 07-56117 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-05-01534-IEG v. MEMORANDUM * LARRY SCRIBNER, Warden,** Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 15, 2009 *** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Mario Arron Newsome appeals from the district * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** Larry Scriber is substituted for his predecessor, S.J. Ryan, as Warden of Calipatria State Prison, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Research court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Newsome contends that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by admitting prior out-of-court statements made by five declarants who testified at trial but could not recall whether they made the prior statements.
The district court correctly determined that the California Court of Appeal’s rejection of Newsome’s Sixth Amendment claims was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 559-60 (1988); California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 164 (1970).
AFFIRMED.
Research 2 07-56117