Ralph Albert Marcus v. Darrell G. Adams; Attorney General of the State of California

09-15410Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit23 de fev. de 2011

Abrir fonte

Texto 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).
*** The Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RALPH ALBERT MARCUS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DARRELL G. ADAMS; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 09-15410
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00926-ATG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Alfred T. Goodwin, Senior Circuit Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2011 **
San Francisco, California
Before: TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and CONLON, District Judge. ***
FILED
FEB 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Petitioner-appellant Ralph Albert Marcus appeals the district court’s denial
of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
The district court granted a Certificate of Appealability on two issues: (1)
whether Marcus’s due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963), were violated by the prosecution’s alleged withholding of exculpatory
cassette tapes; and (2) whether Marcus’s Sixth Amendment right to effective
assistance of counsel was violated by his trial counsel’s performance, under the
standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Marcus and
his counsel do not brief either certified issue in this appeal. Instead, Marcus’s
briefing focuses exclusively on a third, uncertified issue concerning the pretrial
removal of his public defender for a conflict of interest. That claim is
unmeritorious and we decline to address it. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e).
Having waived the two certified issues by failing to brief them, Marcus does
not present any colorable claim on appeal.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.