Russell R. Crider v. George A. Smith Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of California

39 F.3d 1186 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Russell R. CRIDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George A. SMITH; Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-55321. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 1, 1994. * Decided Nov. 8, 1994. Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, GOODWIN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Russel R. Crider, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas petition. Crider was convicted, following a bench trial, of burglary, armed robbery, false imprisonment, and car theft, and was sentenced to 100 months imprisonment. Crider contends that the district court erred by denying his petition, and that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 . We review de novo the denial of a petition for habeas corpus. Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1451 (9th Cir.1994).…