Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0532-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Damion DAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Domingo URIBE, Jr., Warden and Bill Lockyer, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 11-55747.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 3, 2012.
    Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    James William Bilderback, II, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Schneider, Deputy Attorney General, Lawrence Daniels, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Damion Davis appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Davis contends that the state court’s selection of an upper-term sentence on the basis of a fact not found by the jury, namely, that he was on parole at the time of the burglary in this case, was not rendered harmless by the probation report’s uncontested representation that Davis was on parole at the time of the crime. This contention fails. Upon review of the record, we are not left in grave doubt that a jury would have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Davis was on parole at the time that he committed the crime in this case; thus, the district court correctly determined that the Apprendi error was harmless. See Estrella v. Ollison, 668 F.3d 593, 598-600 (9th Cir.2011).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.