Pulido v. Lamarque

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL ROBERT PULIDO,  No. 05-15916 Petitioner-Appellee, v.  D.C. No. CV-99-04933-CW CHRIS CHRONES, Respondent-Appellant. 

MICHAEL ROBERT PULIDO,  No. 05-16308 Petitioner-Appellant, v.  D.C. No. CV-99-04933-CW CHRIS CHRONES, ORDER Respondent-Appellee.  ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Filed March 20, 2009

Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

In light of Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. __ (2008), 129 S. Ct. 530, which vacated the judgment of this court, 487 F.3d 669, and remanded, we in turn remand this case to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court’s determination that the appropriate standard of review in a case under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

3565 3566 PULIDO v. CHRONES Act of 1996 is harmless error, rather than structural error, when a jury is instructed on alternative theories of guilt.

REMANDED. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.