Valentine v. Alameida

Full title: ALEXANDER VALENTINE, Petitioner - Appellee, v. EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 20, 2005

No. 04-55208 (9th Cir. Sep. 20, 2005)

Opinion

ALEXANDER VALENTINE, Petitioner - Appellee, v. EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., Warden, Respondent - Appellant. ALEXANDER VALENTINE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Nos. 04-55208, 04-55365 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit September 20, 2005

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. CV-01-00681-NAJ Southern District of California, San Diego

Before: FARRIS, D.W. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AMENDING MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION ANDDENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC

The Memorandum disposition filed on August 8, 2005, is amended as follows:

The following sentence on Page 4, lines 10-14 is eliminated:

§The district court incorrectly applied Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 113-14 (1943), in this circumstance, because Palmer, an interpretation of an early federal evidentiary rule, does not establish a constitutional principle that is applicable to the states under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). See Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 10 (2002).§

With the amended Memorandum disposition, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Tallman has voted to the deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judges Farris and Nelson recommend denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. See Fed. R. App. P.35.

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. No further petitions shall be entertained.