Affirmed where the claim was that evidence of mental illness should have been presented at a three-strikes sentencing. The court affirmed because the states court's finding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to present the evidence and that there was no prejudice from counsel actions was not an unreasonable application of
UPDATE: August 28, 2015 - The Court issued an order that this case be reheard en banc.
A habeas petitioner raised a sufficiency of the evidence claim. (Jackson v. Virginia) An excellent discussion of fairly presenting a sufficiency of the evidence claim in state court. But found that the trial court's rejection of the claim was not an objectively unreasonable application of the Jackson standard.
After a petition for a rehearing and with the help of an amicus brief from the District of Nevada Federal Defender's Office, Judge Murguia change her voted, much to the chagrin of Judge O'Scannlain, and this time wrote the majority opinion reversing the district court (previously she wrote the majority opinion affirming the district court) holding that the petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling. The case has an excellent discussion of what constitutes "extraordinary circumstance" for equitable tolling particularly where state habeas counsel abandoned his client and where the petitioner was misled into believing the state court had excused her late filing. The concurring opinion, by District Court Judge Adelman, stressed that not to allow equitable tolling would have required the essentially pointless early filing of federal petitions by prisoners who reasonably believe that their claims are properly pending, unexhausted, in state courts.