Gina Celaya v. Charles Ryan

Good Law
497 F. App'x 744
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 14, 201210-15935, 10-15964California836 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER

The memorandum disposition filed on June 12, 2012, is withdrawn and replaced with the accompanying memorandum disposition.

The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for en banc or panel rehearing shall be permitted.

MEMORANDUM

Charles Ryan, et al., (collectively, Respondents-Appellants/Cross-Appellees) appeal the district court’s conclusion that Gina Gail Celaya’s habeas petition was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d). Respondents also appeal the district court’s determination that the Arizona Court of Appeals’s decision affirming Celaya’s conviction was contrary to clearly established federal law, entitling Celaya to habeas relief. Celaya cross-appeals the district court’s holding that she procedurally defaulted on her ineffective assistance of counsel claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm. Because…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.