Pulido
Pulido v. Lamarque
Opinion
Opinion
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL ROBERT PULIDO, No. 05-15916 Petitioner-Appellee, v. D.C. No.
CV-99-04933-CW
CHRIS CHRONES,
Respondent-Appellant.
MICHAEL ROBERT PULIDO, No. 05-16308 Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.C. No.
CV-99-04933-CW
CHRIS CHRONES,
ORDER
Respondent-Appellee.
ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT
Filed March 20, 2009
Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
In light of Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. __ (2008), 129 S. Ct. 530, which vacated the judgment of this court, 487 F.3d 669, and remanded, we in turn remand this case to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court’s determination that the appropriate standard of review in a case under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
3565 3566 PULIDO v. CHRONES Act of 1996 is harmless error, rather than structural error, when a jury is instructed on alternative theories of guilt.