FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KELLY GENE PARANTEAU, No. 10-35609
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00018-SEH-
RKS
v.
LEROY KIRKEGARD and ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM *
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MONTANA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 6, 2013 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Montana state prisoner Kelly Gene Paranteau appeals the district court’s
summary denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.
1. The Montana Supreme Court's decision that Paranteau did not suffer a
violation of his speedy trial right was not contrary to or an unreasonable
application of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Nor
was the Montana Supreme Court’s decision based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence showing that Paranteau’s counsel
took actions inconsistent with Paranteau’s desire for a speedy trial. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(2).
2. The state court's admission of Paranteau’s statements to law enforcement
was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.
See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226 (1973) (considering the totality
of the circumstances to determine the voluntariness of a confession). The state
court found that the offers of leniency were contingent, not guarantees, and that
Paranteau was not so overcome by the effects of methamphetamine that he was
unable to comprehend his circumstances or understand the Miranda warnings.
Paranteau did not challenge these factual findings in his habeas petition, and they
are presumptively correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e).
2
3. The Montana Supreme Court's decision not to remand for retroactive
application of State v. Goetz, 191 P.3d 489 (Mont. 2008), was not contrary to or an
unreasonable application of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). Teague does
not concern retroactivity of newly decided state court cases or newly recognized
state constitutional rights. Moreover, the Montana Supreme Court’s decision rests
on Montana law and therefore does not present a cognizable federal claim. See
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (noting that “federal habeas corpus
relief does not lie for errors of state law”) (quoting Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764,
780 (1990))).
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying
Paranteau’s habeas petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 cases. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
3