Morehead v. Stewart

Ninth Circuit

Morehead v. Stewart

47 F. App'x 817

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 16, 2002

DocketNo. 00-17482; D.C. No. CV-99-02157-PGR

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 F. App'x 817 (Morehead v. Stewart) 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

Morehead v. Stewart, 47 F. App'x 817 (9th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

William Edward Morehead appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

This court granted a certificate of appealability on the question of “whether the district court properly dismissed petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on ground that petitioner failed to specify which issues should have been raised by appellate counsel.” Unfortunately for Morehead, there is no mention of that issue in his opening brief, and it is therefore waived. Because Morehead has waived the only issue properly before us, we must dismiss his appeal. See United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 956, 958-59 (9th Cir.2000); Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 (9th Cir.2000).

DISMISSED.

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

**

William Edward Morehead appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

This court granted a certificate of appealability on the question of “whether the district court properly dismissed petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on ground that petitioner failed to specify which issues should have been raised by appellate counsel.” Unfortunately for Morehead, there is no mention of that issue in his opening brief, and it is therefore waived. Because Morehead has waived the only issue properly before us, we must dismiss his appeal. See United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 956, 958-59 (9th Cir.2000); Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 (9th Cir.2000).

DISMISSED.

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)

47 F. App'x 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morehead-v-stewart-ca9-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack