Case ID: f-appx_584/html/0562-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carlos GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron E. BARNES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-16479.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2014.
    
    Filed Aug. 18, 2014.
    Suzanne Adele Luban, Law Offices of Suzanne A. Luban, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Denise A. Yates, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Former California state prisoner Carlos Garcia 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. We review the district court’s decision to deny Garcia’s habeas petition de novo, see Nevarez v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir.2014) (per curiam), and we affirm.

In January 2010, while Garcia was still incarcerated, California Penal Code section 2933.6 was amended to deny conduct credits for inmates who are housed in a security housing unit and are validated gang members or associates. Garcia contends that his right to be free from ex post facto laws was violated because his release date was extended when prison officials applied amended section 2933.6 to him. The state court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Nevarez, 749 F.3d at 1128-29 (California court did not unreasonably conclude that section 2933.6 punishes conduct occurring after the original offense). Moreover, on this record, the state court did not make an unreasonable determination of fact when rejecting this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).

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