Oscar Rico-Arreola v. SMITH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR RICO-ARREOLA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
SMITH, Warden; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
NEVADA,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 17-15826
D.C. No.
3:13-cv-00580-MMD-WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 10, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner-Appellant Oscar Rico-Arreola was convicted in Nevada state
court of one count of sexual assault of a minor under the age of fourteen. Rico-
FILED
OCT 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Arreola filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Federal District Court for
the District of Nevada alleging that the prosecution’s use of peremptory strikes
against two African-American jurors violated his constitutional rights under Batson
v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The district court denied the petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
The Nevada Supreme Court’s decision was not “contrary to” nor “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). Applying Felkner
v. Jackson, 562 U.S. 594 (2011) (per curiam), which upheld a peremptory strike
based on the juror’s background in social work, the Nevada Supreme Court could
reasonably conclude that the prosecution had provided a valid, race-neutral reason
for striking both jurors. Moreover, the Nevada Supreme Court did not contravene
clearly established Federal law by failing to conduct a comparative juror analysis
when evaluating the third prong of Batson. See Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984,
1005 (9th Cir. 2014).
The Nevada Supreme Court’s decision was also based on a reasonable
“determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court
proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). It was not objectively unreasonable for the
Nevada Supreme Court to defer to a credibility determination by the trial court.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

See Felkner, 562 U.S. at 598. Moreover, the comparative juror analysis presented
by Rico-Arreola to this court does not indicate that the trial court’s credibility
determination was unreasonable.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --