Mahrt v. Beard, No. 15-16404 (Fletcher w/Christen & Friedland). The 9th reversed the granting of habeas relief on IAC grounds.

The petitioner alleged that his state counsel should have filed a motion to suppress evidence.  Petitioner had been convicted in the state of being a prohibited possessor of ammunition. The evidence was found during a search of his apartment. The police came to the apartment when a neighbor called about a heated argument.  The petitioner met the police outside. The police searched petitioner's apartment when he was outside under a "protective sweep" exception to the warrant clause. They saw ammunition.  The police also said they had consent for a second search.

The 9th first held that petitioner's guilty plea did not bar his IAC petition. Courts have allowed IAC in such instances, and it goes to the evidence found. 

The 9th stated that a suppression motion probably should have been filed, or at least discussed with petitioner.  The petitioner had pled "open" (without a plea) to the charge.  However, there was no prejudice.  The 9th then held that the state court could have found the police saw the ammunition in plain view during an allowable protective sweep. The police did a sweep to see if the ex girlfriend was being held in the apartment and/or she was safe. The state court could have found the sweep was valid under the circumstances.  The 9th tended to agree.

The 9th reversed the granting of habeas.

The decision is here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/03/01/15-16404.pdf