Sergio Pablo v. W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO PABLO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 14-16128
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00627-EMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Sergio Pablo appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s denial of
a habeas corpus petition, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011),
* 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).
FILED
JUN 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-16128
and we affirm.
Pablo contends that the trial court violated his rights to a fair trial and
impartial jury by denying his motion for a new trial based on alleged juror
misconduct. In light of the nature of the extrinsic evidence to which the jury was
exposed, the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and the record as a whole, Pablo has
not shown that any alleged juror misconduct had a “substantial and injurious effect
or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507
U.S. 619, 623 (1993) (internal quotations omitted); Sassounian v. Roe, 230 F.3d
1097, 1109 (9th Cir. 2000) (enumerating factors in determining prejudice from
jurors’ exposure to extrinsic evidence). Accordingly, the state court’s conclusion
that Pablo was not entitled to a new trial was not contrary to, or an unreasonable
application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --