Kurt Lepping v. Dean Williams ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KURT LEPPING, No. 16-35369
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00227-RRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Corrections,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Alaska state prisoner Kurt Lepping appeals from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court’s denial of a
*
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).
habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir.
2011), and we affirm.
Lepping contends that the state trial court deprived him of due process when
it denied his motion for a continuance of his jury trial on charges of numerous
Alaska fish and game violations. The Alaska state court’s rejection of his claim
was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal
law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Ungar v. Sarafite, 376
U.S. 575, 589 (1964) (trial courts have broad discretion on matters of
continuances, and only a “myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a
justifiable request for delay” is constitutionally impermissible).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-35369