Case ID: f-appx_421/html/0755-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jesse Joseph VASQUEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 09-16903.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 16, 2011.
    Victor Stephen Haltom, Law Office of Victor S. Haltom, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Jesse Noel Witt, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, 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 Jesse Joseph Vasquez appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Vasquez contends that the state court violated his due process rights by allowing his conspiracy sentence to be enhanced on the basis of a jury drug-weight finding that did not require Vasquez’s knowledge of the specific drug weight involved.

Under California law, drug conspiracy sentences may be enhanced on the basis of weight allegations found true by a jury without a showing of the defendant’s actual knowledge of the quantity of drugs involved, as long as the jury is instructed on the necessity of finding the defendant’s “substantial involvement” in the planning, direction, execution, or financing of the conspiracy and its objective and makes a finding that the weight allegation is true. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11370.4(a)(5) (West 2002); People v. Chevalier, 60 Cal.App.4th 507, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 482, 485 (1997). Neither this California sentencing provision nor the state court’s decision affirming its application in this case is contrary to or an unreasonable application of any clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). Contrary to Vasquez’s assertion, nothing in Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946), requires a contrary result.

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