Angel Medrano v. Charles Ryan
Opinion
Opinion
ORDER
The memorandum disposition filed April 9, 2015 is withdrawn, and a new disposition is filed concurrently with this Order.
The panel has unanimously voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judges Fletcher and Christen have also voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Davis so recommends. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED.
MEMORANDUM
Angel Medrano appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition challenging his convictions for murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, and burglary. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court’s order.
■1. The clearly established federal law regarding the government’s obligation to disclose information favorable to the defense is found in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). In examining the reasonableness of a state court’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), we look to “the last explained state-court judgment” on the claim. Ylst v.…