Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

oA__._.;,.,.______________________________, ____ u _w_ I
. l
{ H - Case 3:00-cv—OO948-JCH Document 23 Fnled 04/29/2005 Page `1])iI(3f,WM, up
f > · ' o0»e,»¤»·¤rqs
' u0¤,a>.·5.
A A I R "’€“ .
- - 0‘’A .. J .. iT - , , ..._ _
‘ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS.!
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
2005 /.00 20 FJ 2= L18
/P.A .0 A . s
U.:.;.__4.;,; .. __i.iiQ_§R`T
.0.. Eli
THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY
TO THIS OR ANY OTHER CoURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE
ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT
STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR
PURPOSES or COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
At a stated term of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood
Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the
City of New York, on the 13* day of December, two
thousand four.
_ ,__;}
PRESENT. HCN. JAMES L. OAKES, ,.,0 ·.»-» ei4.~,,,_,__
"¢"2‘;,»·"f 0;) 0 0; `{""*f%**"TA°"-I
HON. DENNIS JACOBS, ggy “g%g
HON. JCSE A. CABRANES DEU 1 5 2004
Circuit Judges. R% __,_:_ “%j g
`@%EA.AAef*i .... N
- - - 4 --»---—--~---- x
Terry Portee, q....... .
Petitioner-Appellant,
—v.— 03-2684 i
1
A
John Armstrong and Stan Young,
Respondents—Appe11ees.
r....—m.-- - ---—-—- X
APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: Robert J. Boyle, New
York, New York
I I
_lS SUED AS MANDATE: . -
APR I 2005 >
>· ?—>»T>; x1¢’3.i·ai.¢+i=*>&-·.$··-=—`+—r—#v--·-r A,. ;__, _;___ _;___ _g__ _;;' _E:_ 2:22

a , · Gase 3:00-cv-00948-JCH Document 23 Filed O4/29/2005 Page20f3
( .
’ 1
APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: Michael E. O'Hare, I '
Supervisory Assistant >
State's Attorney, Rocky -
- Hill, Connecticut - I
Appeal from the United States District Court for the I
District of Connecticut (Hall, Q;).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 1
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED and the petition is DENIED.
Terry Portee appeals from an order entered in the
United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut (Hall, QL) on December 27, 2003, dismissing
Portee’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It is
assumed that the parties are familiar with the facts, the
procedural context, and the specification of the issues
_ on appeal.
I The court has jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
This court reviews de novo a district court denial of
habeas relief. Bobb v. Senkowski, 196 F.3d 350, 352 (2d
Cir. 1999). The underlying state court decision is
reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) [AEDPA], under
which habeas relief is appropriate only if the state
court’s determination was either “contrary to" or “an
, unreasonable application of" “clear1y established”
Supreme Court precedent. ld. When a state court
expressly engages in harmless error review, we assess
whether the state court unreasonably applied the standard
in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967),
requiring that error be harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt. Gutierrez v. McGinnis, F.3d , 2004 WL
2579235 (2d Cir. 2004).
Here, the state court expressly ruled that, even if
Portee’s rights were violated, any such error was
1

I
E “` ‘ ‘ ,’ Case 3:00-cv-00948-JCH Document 23 Filed O4/29/2005 Page30f3 K
i harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We need not decide }
whether Portee’s rights under the confrontation clause y
were violated because in any event, for substantially the
reasons the reasons stated by the district court, the
determination by the state court that any such violation
was harmless was not unreasonable. See Fuller v.
Gorczyk, 273 F.3d 212, 220 (2d Cir. 2001). ‘
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED and the petition is DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
ROSEANN B. MACKECHNIE, CLERK I
By:
Oliva M. George," Deputy Clerk
A”ii#5E"c¤w
RDSEANN B. Ma¤KEcHmE, QQQRK
i4¢ “
d 3 `