Finding no ineffective assistance of counsel in the plea bargain, but noting that “[pjetitioner did not allege in his habeas petition that, had counsel correctly informed him about his parole eligibility date, he would have pleaded not guilty and insisted on going to trial”
How later courts described this case
- Finding no ineffective assistance of counsel in the plea bargain, but noting that “[pjetitioner did not allege in his habeas petition that, had counsel correctly informed him about his parole eligibility date, he would have pleaded not guilty and insisted on going to trial”
- after a Title VII case has been fully tried, we review a district court’s finding of discrimination under the clearly erroneous standard
- “After a Title VII case is fully tried, we review the decision under the clearly erroneous standard applicable to factual determinations.”
- after a Title VII case is fully tried, this court reviews for clear error
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by University of Southern California v. Superior Court, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1028 (1990)
(9th Cir. 1985) 764 F.2d 1279, 1283 was inapplicable to Dr. Miller’s gender discrimination claim.
The opinion
ALARCON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the opinion of the majority insofar as it affirms the judgment of the district court.
The government stipulated that the plaintiff had proved a prima facie case of discrimination. The trial judge did not believe the witnesses offered by the Air Force in support of its defense that there were legitimate reasons to explain the failure to promote Kimbrough. Instead, the district court, after considering all the evidence, was convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that the Air Force discriminated against Kimbrough because of her race and that the reasons offered to justify the failure to promote her were pretextual. Under such circumstances, we must affirm.