Freeman, III v. Nolan ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                  Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 15-2002
    JAMES FREEMAN, III,
    Petitioner, Appellant,
    v.
    DAVID NOLAN,
    Respondent, Appellee.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
    [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Torruella, Lynch, and Barron,
    Circuit Judges.
    Christine DeMaso, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal
    Public Defender Office, District of Massachusetts, on brief for
    appellant.
    Eva M. Badway, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Bureau,
    and Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, on brief for
    appellee.
    September 9, 2016
    Per curiam.       James Freeman, III appeals from the denial
    of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     on March 14, 2011, in the United States District
    Court for the District of Massachusetts.                   Freeman raised four
    challenges to his 1999 convictions for first-degree murder and
    other crimes of violence under Massachusetts state law, only three
    of which he maintains on appeal.1
    On October 16, 2012, a magistrate judge issued a report
    and   recommendation         concluding   that    none    of     Freeman's    claims
    supported habeas relief. As to the three claims framed by Freeman,
    the magistrate judge found as follows:
    First, Freeman's challenge to the trial court's decision
    to permit a potential defense witness to assert a Fifth Amendment
    privilege not to testify failed on the merits, as the record did
    not reflect an unreasonable application of clearly established
    federal law.     See 
    id.
     § 2254(d)(1).           And in any event, the record
    indicated that any error was harmless.
    Second,    Freeman's     challenge      to        the    trial   court's
    dismissal of a deliberating juror likewise failed on the merits,
    see   id.,   while     his    corollary   challenge       to    the    court's   jury
    instruction regarding that dismissal was procedurally defaulted,
    1   Claims not renewed in an appellate brief are waived.
    See United States v. Dietz, 
    950 F.2d 50
    , 54 (1st Cir. 1991).
    - 2 -
    even if properly before the habeas court, see Olszewski v. Spencer,
    
    466 F.3d 47
    , 62 (1st Cir. 2006).
    Third,   Freeman's    ineffective-assistance   challenge,
    predicated on his counsel's failure to seek exclusion of particular
    evidence, was time-barred.2     See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2244
    (d)(1).
    On July 13, 2015, the district judge issued an order
    adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, thereby
    dismissing Freeman's petition. We agree that the petition must be
    dismissed substantially for the reasons articulated below, without
    adoption of the magistrate judge's opinion.        See 1st Cir. R.
    27.0(c).   We add only that, even if all of Freeman's claims were
    properly preserved for consideration on the merits, they would
    still fail.   See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (d)(1).
    The order of the district court is affirmed.
    2    Freeman's brief appears to have jettisoned the broader,
    cumulative-ineffectiveness component of his challenge, which the
    magistrate judge rejected on the merits.      On appeal, "issues
    adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort
    at developed argumentation, are deemed waived." United States v.
    Zannino, 
    895 F.2d 1
    , 17 (1st Cir. 1990).
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-2002U

Judges: Torruella, Lynch, Barron

Filed Date: 9/9/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024