D. E. BLANKENSHIP, Jr. v. Leonard Vare; Nevada Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
D. E. BLANKENSHIP, Jr.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEONARD VARE; NEVADA
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 12-15484
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00641-LRH-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 16, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Donald Blankenship, who was convicted in Nevada state court of sexually
assaulting his daughter, appeals the district court’s denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas
relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
FILED
DEC 2 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
1. The conclusion of the Nevada Supreme Court that Blankenship “failed to
show that there was a reasonable probability of a different result at trial” had
testimony regarding certain prior bad acts not been elicited by defense counsel was
not an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
The victim testified in detail as to each assault, and the case turned on her credibility.
The testimony about prior bad acts was a minor portion of the evidence that the jury
heard, and the state did not mention the bad acts in summation. Fairminded jurists
could thus “disagree on the correctness of the state court’s decision.” Harrington
v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
2. We decline to expand the certificate of appealability and therefore do not
address Blankenship’s remaining arguments.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --