and we will not repeat those facts here. Blair v. Woodford, 319 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.2003). That order stayed our consideration of Blair’s habeas claim pending the outcome of Blair’s direct appeal to the California Supreme Court, which by that point had finally begun. Id. at 1088-89. In 2005, the California Supreme Court rendered its decision affirming Blair’s conviction and sentence in full. People v. Blair, 36 Cal.4th 686, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 485, 115 P.3d 1145 (2005). We then resumed our proceedings. In a motion filed with us in 2005, while Petitioner’s appeal from the district court’s denial of his petition was pending, Petitioner asked for a hearing to determine whether he was competent to continue pursuing habeas relief. See Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). In an unpublished order, we remanded the case
holding a prisoner has no constitutional right to a job in prison holding that  3771 does not give crime victims the right to intervene in federal habeas proceedings holding that infirmities in state habeas proceedings do not constitute grounds for federal habeas relief holding that a deathsentenced state prisoner has a right to a competency determination in federal habeas proceedings holding no right to counsel for capital defendants in state habeas proceedings