Nettles

Nettles v. Newland

Good Law
105 F. App'x 144
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 16, 2004No. 03-15766; D.C. No. CV-00-2750 GEBCalifornia1,262 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Garyon Nettles appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We must determine whether the state court unreasonably applied: (1) Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 , 84 S.Ct. 1697 , 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964), by determining that multiple incidents of passing bad checks could be aggregated into one felony count for charging, or (2) Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), by determining that the failure to give a unanimity instruction was harmless. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

The district court’s denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reviewed de novo. Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 988 (9th Cir.2003). We review Nettles’ petition under the provisions of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) because it was filed on December 18, 2000, after the AEDPA’s effective date of April 24,1996. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 , 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). Under the AEDPA, a federal court may grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with respect to a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court,…

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.