1.  Greenway v. Ryan, No. 14-15309 (5-11-17)(Schroeder w/Rawlinson; Bea concurring)(note: this is a Az FPD CHU case). In this capital habeas appeal, the 9th affirms the district court's denial of IAC claims. The 9th found that IAC did not occur when trial counsel argued that the evidence only inculcated petitioner in the destruction of stolen property. The lack of an overall defense theory as to the underlying murders was not ineffective. The 9th also found that IAC did not occur with counsel's failure to present an impulsivity mental defense.  Such a defense might well have been counterproductive.  Finally, the 9th found that IAC did not occur in voir dire.  Counsel could not be clairvoyant that a juror would not disclose being a victim of a violent crime. Bea concurs. He would find the juror claim barred and need not be addressed.

The decision is here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/05/11/14-15309.pdf

2. US v. Brugnara, No. 15-10509 (5-11-17)(Wallace w/M. Smith & Erickson).  What could go wrong when a defendant with mental problems asserts his Faretta right to represent himself at trial? Plenty. This opinion, which affirms convictions for fraud and various other offenses (including escape), illustrates the pitfalls.  The 9th finds sufficient evidence to affirm the substantive convictions.  It also found that juror misconduct issues were waived. 

The decision is here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/05/11/15-10509.pdf