Dana Ewell v. A. Scribner

MEMORANDUM

Dana Ewell appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Ewell contends that the state appellate court erred in rejecting his claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the admission of evidence obtained from a cloned pager. A federal court may review Fourth Amendment claims in habeas corpus proceedings only if the state court proceeding denied the applicant an “opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482 , 96 S.Ct. 8037 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). Because the state courts heard and considered Ewell’s Fourth Amendment claim, Ewell was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate it. See Moormann v. Schriro, 426 F.3d 1044, 1053 (9th Cir.2005); Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir.1996); Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613 (9th Cir.1990). Accordingly, federal habeas corpus review of this claim is precluded.

Ewell also argues that the state appellate court erred in rejecting his claim that the State’s violations of the recording and sealing requirements of Title III, 18…