Randolph A. Haro v. Robert Borg, Warden

996 F.2d 1224 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Randolph A. HARO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert BORG, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 93-55125. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 21, 1993. * Decided June 29, 1993. Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Randolph A. Haro, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. Haro alleges that his conviction for first degree murder is invalid, because his trial counsel was ineffective. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Thomas . Lewis, 945 F.2d 1119, 1122 , (9th Cir.1991), and we affirm. 3 We have rejected a per se rule that representation by a lawyer suspended from practice by a state bar automatically results in the denial of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. United States v. Hoffman, 733 F.2d 596, 600-01 (9th Cir.),…