Marcus Weatherspoon v. E. McDaniels

439 F. App'x 660
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided June 24, 2011·No. 08-16582·Unpublished·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Marcus Weather-spoon appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

*661 Weatherspoon contends that his trial lawyer rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call Gloria Banks as a witness. The Nevada Supreme Court denied this claim, holding that Weatherspoon failed to demonstrate that his counsel acted unreasonably. The record shows that the state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Weatherspoon is therefore not entitled to habeas relief. See Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785-87, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

Weatherspoon’s motion to supplement the record is denied.

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

Marcus Weatherspoon v. E. McDaniels, 439 F. App'x 660 (9th Cir. 2011).

439 F. App'x 660 (Marcus Weatherspoon v. E. McDaniels) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weatherspoon v. McDaniel
181 L. Ed. 2d 403 (Supreme Court, 2011)