U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1996

Arthur Daniel Finch v. Arthur Calderon, Warden

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 3, 1996

89 F.3d 845; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 34884; 1996 WL 225987 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Opinion

89 F.3d 845

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Arthur Daniel FINCH, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 95-16966.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 30, 1996.*
Decided May 3, 1996.

Before: BROWNING, REINHARDT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

We affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court's Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed September 21, 1995.

AFFIRMED.1

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Because we affirm the dismissal of the petition under the former version of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, we do not consider whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 applies to this appeal

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.