Case ID: f-appx_372/html/0810-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Demetrious Lonzell GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. K. PROSPER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-55576.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 31, 2010.
    Demetrious Lonzell Green, Susanville, CA, pro se.
    Marc Kohm, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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 Demetrious Lonzell Green appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Green contends that the California trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), by imposing an upper-term sentence based on judicially-determined facts.

Because the trial court relied on at least one permissible factor in enhancing Green’s sentence, the California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 643 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 767, 172 L.Ed.2d 763 (2008).

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