KEVIN RIKARD V. ANTHONY HEDGPETH, No. 10-15123 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAY 21 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVIN GLEN RIKARD, No. 10-15123 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01867-JKS v. MEMORANDUM * ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California James K. Singleton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 15, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Kevin Glen Rikard appeals pro se from the district court s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. * 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. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2). Rikard contends that his due process rights were violated because he was not permitted to allocute at sentencing. Contrary to Rikard s contention, the state court s decision rejecting this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court in Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Duhaime v. Ducharme, 200 F.3d 597, 600 (9th Cir. 2000) ( [B]ecause of the 1996 AEDPA amendments, [this court] can no longer reverse a state court decision merely because that decision conflicts with Ninth Circuit precedent on a federal Constitutional issue. ). Rikard s motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied because he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as to that additional claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Mendez v. Small, 298 F.3d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir. 2002) ( A state court has the last word on the interpretation of state law. ). AFFIRMED. 2 10-15123
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.
