Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aleman v. Uribe

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

July 14, 2013

Mario Aleman, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Domingo Uribe, Jr., Warden, Appellee-Respondent. Raymond Maldonado, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Greg Lewis, Warden, Acting Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

Argued and Submitted March 7, 2013—Pasadena, California

Amended July 16, 2013

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California J. Spencer Letts, Senior District Judge, Presiding D.C. Nos. 2:06-cv-04687, 2:06-cv-06606-JSL-RZ

Jan B. Norman (argued), Los Angeles, California, for Petitioner-Appellant Mario Aleman.

Fay Arfa (argued), Fay Arfa, A Law Corporation, Los Angeles, California, for Petitioner-Appellant Raymond Maldonado.

Michael R. Johnsen (argued), Deputy Attorney General; Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California; Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General; Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Los Angeles, California, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges, and Mark L. Wolf, Senior District Judge.[*]

SUMMARY[**]

Habeas Corpus

Affirming the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition raising a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the panel held that a state court does not violate a defendant's constitutional rights by denying a Batson motion based on a prosecutor's credible explanation that he or she made an honest mistake in exercising a peremptory challenge to dismiss the wrong juror.

ORDER

The opinion filed on June 14, 2013 and published at __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2665530, is AMENDED as follows.

In the final paragraph on page six of the slip opinion, "United States District Court for the Eastern District of California" is deleted and replaced with "United States District Court for the Central District of California."

In the first full paragraph on page seven of the slip opinion, "Eastern District of California" is deleted and replaced with "Central ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.