David Clinton Hatton v. Edward Bonner

Caution
356 F.3d 955·2004 WL 117430·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26772
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 27, 200402-15586California5,391 words

Opinion

Opinion

Graber, J.

ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND AMENDED OPINION

ORDER

The opinion filed October 8, 2003, slip opinion at 14955 and published at 346 F.3d 938 (9th Cir.2003), is amended by the opinion filed concurrently with this order. With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it.

The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.

OPINION

We are called on to decide whether the state court’s decision, upholding the application of California’s sex-offender registration statute to Petitioner David Hatton, involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Because we answer that question “no,” we must affirm the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1981, Petitioner was convicted of assault with intent to commit oral…

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.