James Chavez v. ROBERT LEGRAND, Warden and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES CHAVEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT LEGRAND, Warden and
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 17-15541
D.C. No.
3:13-cv-00548-MMD-WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: MURPHY,*** PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JUN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 Michael R. Murphy, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

James Chavez petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
after he was convicted on four counts of sexual assault of his minor child, D.C., in
violation of Nevada Revised Statute section 200.366. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 and we affirm.
Habeas relief is precluded because the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision
was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Crawford v.
Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Crawford suggested
that “a preliminary hearing at which the defendant had examined the witness” may
provide a meaningful opportunity for cross-examination. 541 U.S. at 58. At a
minimum, “fairminded jurists could disagree,” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86,
101 (2011) (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)), as to
whether the preliminary hearing in this case satisfied the Confrontation Clause
pursuant to Crawford because Chavez’s attorney had an opportunity to cross-
examine D.C. and took advantage of that opportunity.
AFFIRMED.
1 Chavez does not argue that the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision was
based on an unreasonable determination of fact.
2

-- 2 of 2 --