Chaudhry v. Tilton

Ninth Circuit

Chaudhry v. Tilton

314 F. App'x 980

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 2009

DocketNo. 07-55953

StatusPublished

This text of 314 F. App'x 980 (Chaudhry v. Tilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chaudhry v. Tilton, 314 F. App'x 980 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Ahmid A. Chaudhry appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Chaudhry contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to refute the prosecution’s closing argument that his self-defense theory was fabricated. We conclude that the state court’s decision rejecting this claim was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689-92, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

To the extent that Chaudhry raises un-certified claims, we construe his arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-1105 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Ahmid A. Chaudhry appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Chaudhry contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to refute the prosecution’s closing argument that his self-defense theory was fabricated. We conclude that the state court’s decision rejecting this claim was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689-92, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

To the extent that Chaudhry raises un-certified claims, we construe his arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-1105 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 F. App'x 980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chaudhry-v-tilton-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack