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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 22 2010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