Testo completo
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).
SR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM GILCHRIST,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
A. A. LAMARQUE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-15314
D.C. No. CV-04-00920-FCD
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner William Gilchrist appeals pro se 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
JAN 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
SR/Research 08-15314 2
Gilchrist contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object
to the admission of certain evidence. The record reflects that Gilchrist has failed to
show prejudice from the allegedly deficient performance or that the state court’s
rejection of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim was an unreasonable
application of clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
