FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 22 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMAAR JEROME WILLIAMS, ) No. 17-17442
)
Petitioner-Appellant, ) D.C. No. 2:05-cv-00879-APG-CWH
)
v. ) MEMORANDUM*
)
JO GENTRY, Warden; ATTORNEY )
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF )
NEVADA, )
)
Respondents-Appellees. )
)
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 2, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and CHOE-GROVES,*** Judge.
Jamaar Jerome Williams appeals the district court’s dismissal of his habeas
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral
argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge for the United States Court
of International Trade, sitting by designation.
corpus claim1 that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to present an alibi
defense at Williams’ trial in the Clark County, Nevada district court. We affirm.
Williams asserts that his procedural default in the Nevada state court
proceedings should be excused on the basis of cause and prejudice. See Martinez
v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 17, 132 S. Ct. 1309, 1320, 182 L. Ed. 2d 272 (2012). We
disagree. In order to establish cause and prejudice, Williams had to “demonstrate
that the underlying ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim . . . [had] some
merit.” Id. at 14, 132 S. Ct. at 1318; see also Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413, 423,
133 S. Ct. 1911, 1918, 185 L. Ed. 2d 1044 (2013); Rodney v. Filson, 916 F.3d
1254, 1260 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2019). That he has not done. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–91, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064–66, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674
(1984). He has submitted no evidence that prior to Williams’ testimony at trial his
counsel had reason to suspect or believe that Williams had an alibi or alibi
witnesses. On the contrary, the record indicates the opposite. That is far from
showing some merit to his current claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See
id. at 690–91, 104 S. Ct. at 2066; Eckert v. Tansy, 936 F.2d 444, 447 (9th Cir.
1991); see also Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.233; Eckert v. State, 605 P.2d 617, 618–19
(Nev. 1980). The district court did not err.
1
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
2
Williams also argues that the district court should have held an evidentiary
hearing. While evidentiary hearings are often necessary,2 they are not required
where the record before the district court provides a sufficient basis for decision.3
Here, even fully crediting the declarations before the district court,4 nothing in the
declarations indicates that trial counsel was ineffective.
AFFIRMED.
2
See, e.g., Rodney, 916 F.3d at 1261; Detrich v. Ryan, 740 F.3d 1237, 1246
(9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
3
Runningeagle v. Ryan, 825 F.3d 970, 990–91 (9th Cir. 2016); see also
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474, 127 S. Ct. 1933, 1940, 167 L. Ed. 2d 836
(2007).
4
See Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Stewart
v. Cate, 757 F.3d 929, 942 (9th Cir. 2014).
3