Lewis v. Runnels

Ninth Circuit

Lewis v. Runnels

177 F. App'x 649

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 2006

DocketNo. 04-57010

StatusPublished

This text of 177 F. App'x 649 (Lewis v. Runnels) 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

Lewis v. Runnels, 177 F. App'x 649 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

The facts of this case are known to the parties.

Petitioner Kevin Lee Lewis alleges that his due process rights were violated when the California trial court denied his motion for a continuance and when he was denied access to a law library. We have considered his claims and find that they lack [650]*650merit. See Kane v. Garcia Espitia, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 407, 163 L.Ed.2d 10 (2005); United States v. Flewitt, 874 F.2d 669, 675 (9th Cir.1989).

Petitioner’s claim that he did not voluntarily waive his right to counsel was not raised before the district court and is not properly before us on appeal. See Young v. Runnels, 435 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

The facts of this case are known to the parties.

Petitioner Kevin Lee Lewis alleges that his due process rights were violated when the California trial court denied his motion for a continuance and when he was denied access to a law library. We have considered his claims and find that they lack [650]*650merit. See Kane v. Garcia Espitia, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 407, 163 L.Ed.2d 10 (2005); United States v. Flewitt, 874 F.2d 669, 675 (9th Cir.1989).

Petitioner’s claim that he did not voluntarily waive his right to counsel was not raised before the district court and is not properly before us on appeal. See Young v. Runnels, 435 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 F. App'x 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-runnels-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack