Kallins

Kallins v. Superior Court of California

Good Law
74 F. App'x 707
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 24, 2003No. 02-15862, 02-15928; D.C. No. CV-00-03938-TEHCalifornia1,304 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Maureen Kallins petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for relief from four contempt sanctions that she received while serving as defense counsel for accused rapist Anthony Reed in California Superior Court. Kallins was summarily denied relief by the state appellate courts. The federal district court denied habeas relief with respect to the first, second, and fourth contempt findings, but granted relief on the third finding.

Because Kallins’s petition was filed after April 24, 1996, it is governed by the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. See Powell v. Galaza, 328 F.3d 558, 562 (9th Cir.2003). Reviewing de novo the district court’s denial of § 2254 relief, id., we reject Kallins’s argument that the state court proceedings “resulted in a decision that ... involved an unreasonable application of[ ] clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 , 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1174-75 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (explaining that standard).

I. THE CONTEMPT FINDINGS

A. The First Contempt Finding

Judge Horner did not apply Supreme Court law unreasonably by finding…

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.