Banquo Young v. Joe McGrath, No. 08-16021 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 29 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BANQUO D. YOUNG, No. 08-16021 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:03-cv-01674-MCE v. MEMORANDUM * JOE MCGRATH, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Banquo D. Young appeals from the district court s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Young s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief with regard to the certified issue and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief and we have considered his November 19, 2008 informal brief. No answering brief has been filed. The state court s determination of the issue certified for appeal, that sufficient evidence was presented at Young s trial to support his convictions, was not contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief. Accordingly, we deny counsel s request to expand the certificate of appealability. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). We construe the due process arguments in Young s pro se supplemental brief as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See id. Counsel s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2 08-16021

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.