Legal Opinion

United States v. Bagnell

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided December 13, 2007No. 06-35224Published

1Opinion of the Court

*926MEMORANDUM ***

Brandon Bagnell appeals the denial by the district court of his petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.

Bagnell’s arguments that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his unlawful arrest, search, and coerced confession are procedurally barred. Bagnell had an opportunity to raise these arguments at trial and on direct appeal but failed to do so, and he has shown neither cause nor actual prejudice. See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 162-70, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982); United States v. Dunham, 767 F.2d 1395, 1397 (9th Cir.1985);…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. United States v. FradySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Stone v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Tollett v. HendersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. George Lopez v. Dora B. Schriro, Arizona Department of Corrections Director Megan Savage, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007

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

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

Powered by the Exa API