Harold Eugene Lee v. Brian Haws

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).
EF/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAROLD EUGENE LEE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN HAWS,
Respondent.
No. 07-56040
D.C. No. CV-05-00690-GHK
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Harold Eugene Lee appeals from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EF/Research 07-56040 2
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Lee contends that the trial court violated his due process and confrontation
rights by denying his request for a two-day continuance so that a defense witness
who was on vacation could testify at trial. The district court correctly determined
that the California Court of Appeal’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to,
and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme
Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-
12 (1983); Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589-91 (1964).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --