Miguel Soto v. RANDY WHITE, Warden

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 16a0657n.06
Case No. 16-5252
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL SOTO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
RANDY WHITE, Warden
Respondent-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
O P I N I O N
BEFORE: McKEAGUE, KETHLEDGE, and STRANCH Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Miguel Soto filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 in which he asserts claims of juror bias and denial of the right to self-representation in
violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) provides relief to a
habeas petitioner if the state-court decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d). If fair minded jurists could disagree as to the correctness of the state court’s decision,
then Soto would not be entitled to relief. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011). The
district court found that Soto failed to meet his burden of showing the Kentucky Supreme Court
unreasonably applied federal law on both of his claims. R. 23, Dist. Ct. Op., PID 139, 141.

-- 1 of 2 --

Case No. 16-5252
Miguel Soto v. Randy White
- 2 -
This court reviews the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and any factual findings
for clear error. Magna v. Hofbauer, 263 F.3d 542, 546 (6th Cir. 2001). Having duly considered
the district court’s opinion in light of Soto’s appellate arguments, we find no error. His
arguments are unavailing and are fairly and adequately addressed in the magistrate court’s
review and recommendation as fully adopted by the district court. To issue another opinion
reiterating the analysis would be duplicative and unnecessary. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the
district court’s order denying Soto’s habeas corpus petition on these two claims.

-- 2 of 2 --