Kevin Light-Roth v. Stephen Sinclair

MEMORANDUM

Kevin Light-Roth appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The district court issued a certificate of appealability (“COA”) as to two of Light-Roth’s claims, namely whether the government introduced the testimony of Justin VanBrackle in violation Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). Light-Roth also sought a COA from this Court as to his remaining claims (i.e., whether his trial counsel was ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), for failing to uncover the Van-Brackle-related violations, and whether the government introduced the testimony of an additional witness, Chris Highley, in violation of Brady and Napue). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , affirm the district court on the certified claims, and deny Light-Roth’s request for a COA on the remaining claims.

1.The state courts’ rejection of Light-Roth’s VanBrackle-related Brady claim was not the result of an unreasonable determination of the facts or an unreasonable application of federal law. See 28 U.S.C. §…