Edward Anthony Gilliland v. Dorothy C. Vigil, Warden Jim Thomas, Attorney General of the State of Arizona

33 F.3d 58 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Edward Anthony GILLILAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dorothy C. VIGIL, Warden; Jim Thomas, Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Respondents-Appellees. No. 93-16605. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 3, 1994. * Decided Aug. 10, 1994. Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, HUG and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Edward A. Gilliland, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas corpus petition. Gilliland raises four contentions on appeal: 1) the district court erred in concluding he procedurally defaulted on several claims; 2) a sixteen-month delay violated his right to a speedy trial; 3) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance; and 4) the prosecutor improperly commented on Gilliland's failure to testify. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and review the denial de novo. Norris v. Risley, 878 F.2d 1178, 1180 (9th…