Miguel Soto v. Randy White

Sixth Circuit

Miguel Soto v. Randy White

670 F. App'x 893

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 6, 2016

Docket16-5252

StatusUnpublished

This text of 670 F. App'x 893 (Miguel Soto v. Randy White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miguel Soto v. Randy White, 670 F. App'x 893 (6th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Miguel Soto filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he asserts claims of juror bias and denial of the right to self-representation in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) provides relief to a habeas petitioner if the state-court decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). If fair minded jurists could disagree as to the correctness of the state court’s decision, then Soto would not be entitled to relief. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). The district court found that Soto failed to meet his burden of showing the Kentucky Supreme Court unreasonably, applied federal law on both of his claims. R. 23, Dist. Ct. Op., PID 139, 141.

This court reviews the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and any factual findings for clear error. Magana v. Hofbauer, 263 F.3d 542, 546 (6th Cir. 2001). Having duly considered the district court’s opinion in light of Soto’s appellate arguments, we find no error. His arguments are unavailing and are fairly and adequately addressed in the magistrate court’s review and recommendation as fully adopted by the district court. To issue another opinion reiterating the analysis would be duplicative and unnecessary. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order denying Soto’s habeas corpus petition on these two claims.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Miguel Soto filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he asserts claims of juror bias and denial of the right to self-representation in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) provides relief to a habeas petitioner if the state-court decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). If fair minded jurists could disagree as to the correctness of the state court’s decision, then Soto would not be entitled to relief. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). The district court found that Soto failed to meet his burden of showing the Kentucky Supreme Court unreasonably, applied federal law on both of his claims. R. 23, Dist. Ct. Op., PID 139, 141.

This court reviews the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and any factual findings for clear error. Magana v. Hofbauer, 263 F.3d 542, 546 (6th Cir. 2001). Having duly considered the district court’s opinion in light of Soto’s appellate arguments, we find no error. His arguments are unavailing and are fairly and adequately addressed in the magistrate court’s review and recommendation as fully adopted by the district court. To issue another opinion reiterating the analysis would be duplicative and unnecessary. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order denying Soto’s habeas corpus petition on these two claims.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 F. App'x 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miguel-soto-v-randy-white-ca6-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack