N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HELL C O R TEZ, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. AREF FAKHOUR

Y, W arde n, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 10-56046

D.C . No. 2:10-c v-03396-JFW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John F. W a lte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 18, 2014 * * B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r M ic he l l C orte z a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt de ny ing his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s pe t ition c h a lle nging his c onvic tion for two c ounts of forge ry

by posse ssing a bla

nk or unfinishe d c he c k with theinte nt



# FIL ED FEB 26 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).to de fraud, in viola tion of se c tion 475(b) of the C a lifornia

Pe na l C ode . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 2253, a nd we a ffirm . C orte z c onte nds tha

t his two c onvic tions, ba se d on his posse ssion of two diffe re nt individua

l s’ c he c ks, viola

te the Double Je opa

rdy C la use be c a u se the y re sulte d from

a singlea c t of posse s sing bla nk c he c ks. The sta

te m a inta ins tha

t this c la im is une xha

uste d. W e ne e d not a ddre ss this issue be c a use C orte z doe s not ra ise a c olora

ble fe de ra l c la im . Se e28 U.S.C . § 2254(b)(2); C asse tt v . Ste w art , 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th C ir. 2005).

“ W ith re spe c t to c um

u lative se nte n c e s im

p ose d in a single tria l, the Double Je opa rdy C la use doe s no m o re tha

n pre ve nt the se nte nc ing c ourt from pre sc ribing gre ate r punishm e nt tha

n the le gisla

ture inte nde d.” Missouri v. Hunte r , 459 U.S. 359, 366 (1983). W e are bound by the C a l ifornia C ourt of Appe a l ’ s de te rm ination in this c a se tha

t s e c tion 475(b) perm its tre ating theposse ssion of c h e c k s of two vic t im s a s se pa

rate offe nse s. Se eBradshaw v . Ric he y , 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005) (pe r c uriam ) (“ [A] sta

te c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of sta t e la w, inc l uding oneannounc e d on dire c t a ppe a l of the c h a lle nge d c onvic tion, binds a fe d e ra l c ourt sitting in ha be a s c orpus.” ); Hic k

s v . Fe ioc k, 485 U.S. 624, 629-30 & n.3 (1988) (fe de ra l ha

be a s c ourt is not a

t libe rty to disre ga

rd a C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l’ s rulings on sta te la w whe n the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt ha s de nie d re vie w). 1 0 - 5 6 0 4 6

2To the e xte nt C orte zc o nte nds tha t his m ultiplec onvic tions viola

t e sta te la w, suc h a c h a lle nge is not c o g niz a ble on fe d e ra l ha

be a s re vie w. Se eLe w is v . J e ffe rs , 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990) (“ [F] e de ra l ha be a s c orpus re lie f doe s not liefor e rrors of sta te la w[.] ” ). AFFIRM E D.

1 0 - 5 6 0 4 6 3