Insua v. McDonald

369 F. App'x 853

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 5, 2010
• Docket: 07-35705
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Montana State prisoner Albert Insua 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.

Insua contends that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by failing to adequately explain the dangers of self-representation. The record demonstrates that Insua understood the dangers of self-representation, and therefore the Montana Supreme Court’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor was it an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2); United States v. Gerritsen, 571 F.3d 1001, 1012-13 (9th Cir.2009); see also Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835-36, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).

Insua’s request for judicial notice is granted. See Fed.R.Evid. 201.

AFFIRMED.

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