Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

439 F. App'x 660

Marcus Weatherspoon v. E. McDaniels

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided June 24, 2011

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2011-06-24

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2011

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Harrington v. Richter · McNeill v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2011-06-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 MEMORANDUM

¶2 Nevada state prisoner Marcus Weather-spoon appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

¶3*661 Weatherspoon contends that his trial lawyer rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call Gloria Banks as a witness. The Nevada Supreme Court denied this claim, holding that Weatherspoon failed to demonstrate that his counsel acted unreasonably. The record shows that the state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Weatherspoon is therefore not entitled to habeas relief. See Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785-87, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

¶4 Weatherspoon’s motion to supplement the record is denied.

¶5 AFFIRMED.

¶6 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

/439/fappx/660 · .json · Public domain