Summary
holding that an unidentified employee who said another employee was authorized to receive service of process did not invoke the doctrine of ostensible authority because neither employee was a principal
Summary of this case from Chapman v. Teamsters Local 853Opinion
D.C. No. CV-99-1939 SI
Editorial Note:This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Argued and Submitted Oct. 3, 2000.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Susan Y. Illston, District Judge, Presiding.
Before REINHARDT, BRUNETTI, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Maria Elena-Palaad Luna appeals the denial of her petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm.
Luna contends that the trial court violated her due process rights by charging the jury with a standard unmodified instruction regarding the credibility of accomplice testimony. She did not object to the instruction at trial, and we agree with the district court that the violation, if any, was harmless in light of the weight of the state's evidence against Luna.
Luna further contends that her trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object to the instruction in question. However, Luna has not met her burden of demonstrating a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). Accordingly, no violation of the Sixth Amendment occurred.
AFFIRMED.