Larry Dixon v. D. Runnels

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 22 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LARRY DIXON, No. 08-17110 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:04-cv-03038-CW v. MEMORANDUM * D. L. RUNNELS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 29, 2010 ** Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Larry Dixon appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Dixon contends that his due process rights were violated under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), when the prosecutor failed to disclose the extent of a favorable arrangement it made with a key prosecution witness. The state court determined that the existence of such an arrangement, beyond what was disclosed, was speculative. This was neither an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Philips v. Woodford, 267 F.3d 966, 987 (9th Cir. 2001). We further reject Dixon’s request that this case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing concerning this claim. See Philips, 267 F.3d at 987. AFFIRMED. 2 08-17110