FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER M. SCALES, No. 12-35880
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05082-RJB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFREY A. UTTECHT, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Christopher M. Scales appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging
his state conviction for unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review the denial of a section 2254
*
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).
habeas petition de novo, and the denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing for
abuse of discretion. See Wood v. Ryan, 693 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012), cert.
denied, 134 S. Ct. 239 (2013). We affirm.
Scales contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to
appear for trial. The record shows that prior to trial, Scales knowingly and
intelligently waived his right to counsel under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806
(1975). Thus, the state court’s rejection of Scales’s ineffective assistance claim
was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v. Richter, 131 S.
Ct. 770, 788 (2011).
Scales also argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his
requests for an evidentiary hearing and for supplementation of the record under
Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. We disagree. Because Scales’s claim is governed
by section 2254(d)(1), federal habeas review “‘is limited to the record that was
before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.’” Wood, 693 F.3d at
1122 (quoting Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011)).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-35880