Pulido v. Lamarque ( 2009 )

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL ROBERT PULIDO,  No. 05-15916
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.  D.C. No.
CV-99-04933-CW
CHRIS CHRONES,
Respondent-Appellant.

MICHAEL ROBERT PULIDO,  No. 05-16308
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.  D.C. No.
CV-99-04933-CW
CHRIS CHRONES,
ORDER
Respondent-Appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT
Filed March 20, 2009
Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and
Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
In light of Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. __ (2008), 129
S. Ct. 530, which vacated the judgment of this court, 487 F.3d
669, and remanded, we in turn remand this case to the district
court for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme
Court’s determination that the appropriate standard of review
in a case under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
3565
3566 PULIDO v. CHRONES
Act of 1996 is harmless error, rather than structural error,
when a jury is instructed on alternative theories of guilt.
REMANDED.
PRINTED FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS
BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.