Michael Howard Poland v. Clark

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).
NC/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL HOWARD POLAND,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CLARK,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-56702
D.C. No. CV-06-01368-MLH
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael Howard Poland appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NC/Research 07-56702 2
Poland contends that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by
denying his motion for a mistrial because the jury committed misconduct by
considering, during deliberations, a transcript that was not admitted into evidence.
The record reflects that the California state court’s rejection of this claim did not
result in a decision that was “contrary to, or involve[] an unreasonable application
of, clearly established Federal law,” or “an unreasonable determination of the facts
in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d); see also Mancuso v. Olivarez, 292 F.3d 939, 949-53 (9th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --