United States v. Ruben Zuno-Arce
Opinion
Opinion
Graber, J.
Valerio v. Crawford, 306 F.3d 742, 764 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1788 , 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003), overruled the portion of United States v. Zuno-Arce, 209 F.3d 1095, 1100-01 (9th Cir.2000), amended (to include partial dissent) by 245 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.2001), that applied Circuit Rule 22-1(d). In accordance with Valerio , we now must consider the appellate briefing in Zuno-Arce as a request to expand the certificate of appealability (“COA”) issued by the district court. We deny a COA as to the Mooney-Napue claim, the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and the double jeopardy claim. We grant a COA as to the Brady-Bagley claim, but affirm on the merits because the undisclosed evidence is not material within the meaning of that doctrine.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A factual and procedural history is contained in our earlier opinion. 209 F.3d at 1096-99 . We incorporate that material by reference. The district court’s opinion is published, and also includes a thorough factual discussion at United States v. Zuno-Arce, 25 F.Supp.2d 1087 (C.D.Cal.1998).