Samuel Kwame Amankrah v. F. X. Chavez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL KWAME AMANKRAH,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
F. X. CHAVEZ,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-57060
D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00701-CAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Samuel Kwame Amankrah appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the denial of a habeas
corpus petition, see Fairbank v. Ayers, 650 F.3d 1243, 1250 (9th Cir. 2011), and
* 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).
FILED
APR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 11-57060
we affirm.
Amankrah argues that the prosecutor made several remarks during closing
argument that violated Amankrah’s Fifth Amendment right not to testify under
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965). The California Court of Appeal
analyzed the prosecutor’s entire closing argument and concluded that two of the
comments were improper, but that the Griffin error was harmless under Chapman
v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967). The state court’s rejection of Amankrah’s
claim was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, either Griffin or
Chapman, nor an unreasonable determination of facts based on the evidence
presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2199
(2015). Moreover, given the significant evidence of his guilt at trial, Amankrah
has not shown that the prosecutor’s remarks had a “substantial and injurious effect
or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S.
619, 637 (1993) (internal quotations omitted); see also Davis, 135 S. Ct. at 2198.
Amankrah’s motion to present late new evidence is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --