T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J O S H U A A A R O N K E R S H A W, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. C HA R L E S HA R R I S ON , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 15300 D. C. No . CV- 0 6 - 0 1 1 8 0 - DLB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia D e nni s L . B e c k, M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner J oshu a A ar on K er shaw appeal s f rom the di stri ct c ourt ’ s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f irm . 

# FI LED SEP 29 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 15300 2 K e r s ha w c ont e nds tha thi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d pur s ua nt t o B lake l yv . W as hi ngton , 542 U . S . 296 ( 2004) , a nd C u n n in g h a m v . Ca lifo rn ia , 549 U . S . 27 0 (20 07 ), w hen the st at e tri al courtengaged i n fac t -f i nd i ng t o i m po se an uppe r - t e rm s e nt e nc e . T he C a l i f orni ac ourt s de ni e d K e r s ha w ’ s S i xth A m e ndm e nt c h a lle n g e to h is u p p e rte rm s e n te n c e “b yap p ly in g aru le o f d e c is io n c o n tr a ryto cl earl y e st abl i shed S up re m e C ou rtprec edent . ” See B u t ler v. C u rry , 528 F . 3d 624, 6 4 0 ( 9 th C ir .) , c e rt. d e n ie d 1 2 9 S .C t. 7 6 7 ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; s e e al s o 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d); C u n n in g h a m v . Ca lifo rn ia , 5 4 9 U .S . 2 7 0 , 2 8 8 -8 9 (2 0 0 7 ) ( h o ld in g th at C alifo rn ia’s det erm i nat e s ent enci ng l aw vi ol at es the S i xth A m endm ent ). T he di stri ctcourt e rr e d in c o n c lu d in g th a t C unni ngham a nnounc e d ane w pr oc e dur a l rul e of c o n s titu tio n a l la w th a t d o e s n o t ap p lyr e tr o a c tiv e lyo n c o lla te r a l r e v ie w . See B ut ler , 528 F . 3d a t639. A p p ly in g d e n o v o r e v ie w to th e c o n s titu tio n a l c la im , s e e i d. a t641, a ny S i xth A m endm entvi ol at i on w as harm l es s e rr or. T he re cord i nd i ca t es thatthe tri al c ourti m pos e d the uppe rt e rm s e nt e nc e ba s e d, i n pa rt , upon the a ggr a va t i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t K e r s h a w ’s p r io rc o n v ic tio n s w e r e “n u m e r o u s o rin c r e a s in g in se ri ou snes s” and thatK er shaw ’ s pri or perf orm ance on prob at i on or parol e w as uns a t i s f a c t ory . T he pr oba t i on r e portc ons i de r e d bythe tr i a l c ourta ts e nt e nc i ng c ont a i ns a m pl e e vi de nc e t o s upportaj uryf i ndi ng of the s e a ggr a va t i ng08- 15300 3 c i r c um s t a nc e s be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt . T he f a c ttha tthe f

i ndi ng w a s m a de by the tr i a l c ourtr a the rtha n the j ury di d notha ve as ubs t a nt i a l a nd i nj ur i ous e f f e c ton K e r s h a w ’s s e n te n c e . Se e i d. a t 6 4 8 ; H of f m an v. A rave , 23 6 F . 3d 52 3, 54 0 (9th C i r. 20 01 ). AF F I RME D.