Floyd Martin v. G. D. Lewis

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FLOYD MARTIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
G. D. LEWIS,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 13-17597
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01384-KJM-
DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 11, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, DAVIS *** , and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAR 23 2015
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).
*** The Honorable Andre M. Davis, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

Floyd Martin appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291
and 2253(a) and affirm the district court’s order denying the petition. 1
1. The parties have fully briefed the certified Confrontation Clause issue, and
there are no exceptional circumstances warranting vacatur of the certificate of
appealability. Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 2004).
2. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 964 (9th Cir. 2004). The California
Court of Appeal’s silent adjudication of Martin’s Confrontation Clause claim was
neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme
Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Detective Quinn’s testimony relaying
Timothy Hurst’s and Steven Hendrix’s out-of-court statements did not violate the
Confrontation Clause because both Hurst and Hendrix testified at Martin’s trial and
were subject to cross-examination. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59
n.9 (2004) (“[W]hen the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the
Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial
statements.”).
AFFIRMED.
1 The parties are familiar with the facts so we do not recount them here.
2

-- 2 of 2 --