Ruben Quevedo v. M. Kramer

Good Law
510 F. App'x 616
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 27, 201310-15939California948 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Ruben Quevedo (“Quevedo”) appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Quevedo alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel (“LAC”) at trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Specifically, Quevedo alleges that trial counsel failed to file a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress methamphetamine seized at the apartment in which he was staying which resulted in his conviction. At sentencing, Quevedo received a three strikes sentence of 25 years to life. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2258(a), (c) and affirm the district court’s order denying habeas relief.

This Court “review[s] de novo the district court’s grant or denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus.” Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 766 (9th Cir.2012). The district court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Brown v. Ornoski, 508 F.3d 1006 , 1010 (9th Cir.2007). Our review of Quevedo’s habeas corpus petition is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Under AEDPA, habeas relief may not be granted unless the state court’s adjudication of a claim “resulted in a…

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.