Legal Opinion

Parks v. Carey

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 19, 2004No. 03-55366PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM *

We affirm the district court’s denial of Kenneth Kim Parks’s (Parks) federal habeas petition. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.

Because Parks filed his federal habeas petition after April 24, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) applies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326-27, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). AEDPA dictates that we review de novo the district court’s denial of Parks’s habeas petition, see Avila v. Galaza, 297 F.3d 911, 914 n. 1 (9th…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Lindh v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. Nathaniel James v. Robert G. Borg, Warden Attorney General of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
  3. Ignacio Alberto ORTIZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry STEWART, Respondent-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
  4. Ramee Jamal Shah, Aka: Eddie Harris, Jr. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  5. Jesus Avila v. George M. Galaza, Warden Attorney General of the State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Guerrero v. LamorenaSuperior Court of Guam · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API