FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 23 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY REED, No. 15-17490
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:14-cv-00027-JAD-CWH
v.
BRIAN WILLIAMS, Sr. and ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM*
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
NEVADA,
Respondents-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 16, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, FISHER,** and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Reed appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
federal habeas petition. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
The state court’s determination that Reed’s counselors were not
constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to juror misconduct did not
“result[] in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application
of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). There is no evidence that juror number
244 engaged in misconduct. Thus, there were no legitimate grounds upon which
Reed’s defense counselors could have objected. Thus, their decision not to object
to did not fall “below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). The remainder of Reed’s arguments are
not properly before us, because Reed raised them for the first time on appeal. See
United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
2