Sababu Badili Rountree v. JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary of the California Department of Corrections

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SABABU BADILI ROUNTREE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary of
the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation; ROBERT A. HOREL,
Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 08-55272
D.C. No. CV-06-01204-IEG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Sababu Badali Rountree appeals from the district court’s judgment denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
JUL 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-55272 2
§ 2253, and we affirm.
Rountree contends that trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to order
testing of the victim’s clothing for gunshot residue; (2) failing to obtain an expert
witness to testify regarding the mental state of the key eyewitness to the shooting;
and (3) failing to investigate the possibility of introducing experimental evidence
regarding how long the hood of Rountree’s car, found near the crime scene, would
have stayed warm given weather conditions on the night of the crime. The record
indicates that the state court’s rejection of these claims was not an unreasonable
application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
Rountree further contends that the trial court violated his due process rights
by admitting propensity evidence. As Rountree concedes in his reply brief, this
contention is foreclosed by Alberni v. McDaniel, 458 F.3d 860, 863-67 (9th Cir.
2006). See Mejia v. Garcia, 534 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --