Dunlap

MEMORANDUM ***

1. As Dunlap has demonstrated no “actual prejudice” to his defense, see United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 789-90 , 97 S.Ct. 2044 , 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977), he cannot establish a due process violation.

2. The Arizona Court of Appeals’ conclusion that it was harmless error for the “Zobel letter” not to have been admitted at trial in its entirety, was not objectively unreasonable. See Medina v. Hornung, 386 F.3d 872, 877 (9th Cir.2004).

3. The Arizona Court of Appeals’ conclusion that no jury coercion occurred when the trial court instructed the jury to continue deliberations was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. See United States v. Easter, 66 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.1995).

4. The trial court did not err when it denied Dunlap’s motion to vacate judgment based on newly-discovered evidence. See United States v. Reyes-Alvarado, 963 F.2d 1184, 1188 (9th Cir.1992).

5. The Arizona Court of Appeals’ conclusion that any Confrontation Clause errors were harmless was not objectively unreasonable. See Medina, 386 F.3d at 877 .

6. Because the record does not reflect that the police knew the exculpatory value, if any, of records that were…