884 F. 2d 582 - Miller v. Rowland
884 F2d 582 Miller v. Rowland
884 F.2d 582
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Marvin MILLER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
James ROWLAND, Director, California Department of
Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 89-55015.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 8, 1989.*
Decided Aug. 28, 1989.
Before JAMES R. BROWNING, FARRIS and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
MEMORANDUM**
Since the transcript of the plea bargaining negotiations clearly indicates that the parties' informal verbal agreement not to include the transcript in the record was not part of the plea agreement itself, the district court's finding that the government did not violate the plea agreement by placing the transcript in the record was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Helmandollar, 852 F.2d 498, 501 (9th Cir.1988). Appellant himself made reference to the plea agreement in his brief to the state appellate court.
Because Miller had ample opportunity to bring out any inconsistencies in the testimony of Haigh and Bobo through direct and cross examination, the alleged misconduct by the government in using conflicting testimony did not deny Miller a fair trial. Cf. United States v. Wolf, 813 F.2d 970, 976-77 (9th Cir.1987).
Because Miller failed to show he had exhausted state remedies, the district court's refusal to consider three issues raised for the first time in Miller's petition for reconsideration of the denial of his writ of habeas corpus was within the district court's discretion. See Powell v. Spalding, 679 F.2d 163, 165-66 (9th Cir.1982) (within district court's discretion to refuse amendment adding unexhausted claims).
The district court is AFFIRMED.