United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitMar 5, 2010
369 Fed. Appx. 853 (9th Cir. 2010)

No. 07-35705.

Submitted February 16, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed March 5, 2010.

Michael Donahoe, Esquire, Federal Defenders of Montana Helena Branch Office, Helena, MT, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Albert Insua, Shelby, MT, pro se.

Jonathan M. Krauss, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Montana Attorney General, Helena, MT, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-00131-DWM.

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.


This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Montana State prisoner Albert Insua appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Insua contends that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by failing to adequately explain the dangers of self-representation. The record demonstrates that Insua understood the dangers of self-representation, and therefore the Montana Supreme Court's decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor was it an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2); United States v. Gerritsen, 571 F.3d 1001, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835-36, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).

Insua's request for judicial notice is granted. See Fed.R.Evid. 201.