Kendal M. Clark v. DANIEL PARAMO, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENDAL M. CLARK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 13-55479
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01570-JVS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Kendal M. Clark appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court’s denial of a
habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir.
FILED
JUL 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

2011), and we affirm.
Clark contends that his due process rights were violated by the prosecutor’s
use of a PowerPoint slide presentation that misrepresented the applicable burden of
proof. The state court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor based
upon an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 409 (2000) (to support federal
habeas relief, state court’s application of clearly established federal law must have
been “objectively unreasonable”); Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181
(1986) (in prosecutorial misconduct context, the relevant question is whether “the
prosecutor[’s] comments so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the
resulting conviction a denial of due process” (internal quotations omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
13-55479 2

-- 2 of 2 --