Albert Insua v. J. McDONALD

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).
EH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERT INSUA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
J. McDONALD,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-35705
D.C. No. CV-05-00131-DWM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Montana State prisoner Albert Insua appeals from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EH/Research 07-35705 2
Insua contends that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to
counsel by failing to adequately explain the dangers of self-representation. The
record demonstrates that Insua understood the dangers of self-representation, and
therefore the Montana Supreme Court’s decision rejecting this claim was neither
contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor
was it an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2); United States v. Gerritsen, 571 F.3d 1001, 1012-13 (9th
Cir. 2009); see also Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835-36 (1975).
Insua’s request for judicial notice is granted. See Fed. R. Evid. 201.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --