UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL

REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS

OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS

OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A

RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

OR RES JUDICATA.

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 28th

day of February, two thousand and six.

Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

Circuit Judges,

DENNY CHIN,

Dist rict Judge.*

GARY LAKE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

-v- (03-2611-pr)

CHARLES GREINER, Superintendent Sing Sing Correctional

Facility,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appearing for Petitioner-Appellant: Robert A. Culp, New York, NY

Appearing for Respondent-Appellee: Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, Diane R. Eisner,

Assistant District Attorneys (Charles J. Hynes,

District Attorney Kings County, on the brief),

Brooklyn, NY

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.).

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Petitioner Gary Lake appeals from the June 16, 2003 judgment of the district court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

Lake challenges his exclusion from the interview of Beverly Ford as a violation of his "due process right `to be present in his own person whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fulness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.'" Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 (1987) (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105­06 (1934)). Assuming, without deciding, that Lake had a right to be present at this interview, he waived that right by failing to object at the time the violation occurred. See United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 528­29 (1985); United States v. Peterson, 385 F.3d 127, 138­39 (2d Cir. 2004).

We decline to reconsider, as Lake has requested, the decisions of the motion panels, denying Lake's motion to expand the certificate of appealability and to stay his petition so he may exhaust an additional claim in state court.

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: ROSEANN B. MACKECHNIE, Clerk By:

* The Hono r a b l e Denny Chin, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New Y o r k , sitting by designation.