Robert Eugene Merideth v. Brian Belleque

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROBERT EUGENE MERIDETH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN BELLEQUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-35816
D.C. No. 6:04-cv-00762-ALA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Robert Eugene Merideth appeals from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-35816 2
Merideth contends that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to: (1)
investigate the basis for an expert witness’ testimony; and (2) object to certain
prejudicial testimony. The record indicates that the state court’s decision rejecting
Merideth’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not contrary to, or an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032,
1039 (9th Cir. 1995).
Merideth’s request to remand for an evidentiary hearing is denied. See Earp
v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --