Case ID: f-appx_344/html/0436-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Melendez ESTRADA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 07-16498.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
    
    Filed Sept. 3, 2009.
    Daniel L. Kaplan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    George Melendez Estrada, Douglas, AZ, pro se.
    Diane M. Acosta, Esquire Robert Anthony Walsh, Esquire Arizona Attorney General’s Office Phoenix, AZ for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arizona state prisoner George Melendez Estrada appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Arredondo v. Ortiz, 365 F.3d 778, 781 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Estrada contends that his aggravated sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution because only one of the four aggravating circumstances found by the trial court was established in a manner consistent with the Sixth Amendment. The Arizona Court of Appeals decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); cf. Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 643, 648-49 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 129 S.Ct. 767, 172 L.Ed.2d 763 (2008).

We construe Estrada’s briefing of an uncertified issue as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e). So construed, we deny the motion. See Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

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