Pursu ant to Fe de ral Ru le o f A pp ell ate Pr oc ed

ure 43 (c) (2) , N ewYo rk S tat e A tto rne y * General Andrew M. Cuomo is automatically substi tuted for former Attorney General El iot Spitzer as a respondent i n this case
. Th e C ler

k o f C ourt i s d ire cte d to am en d th e o ff ici al c ap tio n a s se t f

ort h a bo ve . ** 07-5192-pr Gl ase r v. Po ole UNITED STA TES COU RT OF AP PEALS FO R T HE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUMMARY ORD ER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MU ST S ER VE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated t erm of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sec ond Circuit, hel d at the Danie l P atr ick

Mo yn ihan C ourth ou se, 50 0 P ear l S tre et, in t he Ci ty o f N ewYo rk, on

the 20 day

th of April, two thousand ten. Pr ese nt: HON. W ILFRED FEINB ERG,

HON. JONO. NEW MAN, HON. RO BERT A. K

ATZMANN , Ci rcu it J ud ges .

________________________________________________ CHARL ES GLASE R,

Pe tit ion er-

Ap pe lla nt,
v. No. 07-5192-pr TH OM AS PO OL E, Su

pe rinten de nt, Fi ve Po int s C orr ect ion al F aci lity, an d A ND RE W M. CU OM O, Ne w Y ork

St ate Attor

ne y G en era l, * Resp on de nts -A

pp ellees . **

________________________________________________ Fo r P eti tio ne r-App ell ant: L ORRAI NE M ADD ALO (Steven Banks, on thebr ief ),T he Le ga l2 Aid Society, Criminal Appeals Burea u, New York, NY Fo r R esp on de nts -App ell ees : M ARK D W YER , Assistant Dis trictAttorney, for Ro be rt M
. Morgenthau, Dist rict Att orney, New York County, New York, NY
Ap pe al f rom the Un ite d S tat es D istric t C ourt f or t he So uth ern

Di str ict of Ne w Y ork (Robinson, J. ). ON CO NS ID ER

AT ION WHE RE OF , it is her eby ORDERED , ADJUDGED , and DECRE ED that th e ju dg m ent of the dis tri ct c ourt b e an d h ere byis AFFIRMED
. Pe tit ion er- ap pe llant C harle s G las er a pp eal s f rom a ju dg m ent of

the dis tri ct c ourt d ate d No ve m be r 13 , 2 00 7, dis m iss inghis pe tit ion fo r a writ of ha be as c orp us . W e as sum e th e p art ies ’ fam ili ari ty w iththe fa cts , p roc ed ura l hi sto ry, an d s pe cif

icatio n o f i ssu es o n a

pp eal
. Glaser’s a rgument that New York’s persis tent felony offender sentenc ing statut e, N.Y. Penal Law § 70.10, is unconsti tutional in light of Ap pr en di v . N

ew Jer sey , 5 30 U. S. 46 6 (2 00 0), and its proge ny is precl uded by this Court’ s prior r ejecti on of that argument in Brow n v . Mi lle r , 451 F. 3d 54 (2d Cir. 2006). Whil e G las er u

rge s u s to rec on sid er Brown in l ight of m ore rec ent S up rem e C ourt c ase s applying Apprendi , we have made clear that “c learly e stablis hed Federal l aw, as determined by th e S up re me Co ur t o f the Uni te d S ta te s, ” 2 8 U. S. C. § 22 54 (d )( 1) , i nc lu de s o nl y t ho se Supr eme Court cases t hat have been dec ided, at the latest , by the time a habeas peti tioner’ s convicti on becomes final, and that “[l]ater Supre me C ourt decis ions play no rol e in assess ing the
rea so na ble ne ss o f t

he state c ourt d eci sio ns .” Brow n v . G rei ne r , 4 09 F. 3d 52 3, 53 3 & n .3 (2d

Ci r. 20 05 ). B eca

us e h e d id n ot f

ile a p eti tio n f

or a wr it o f c ert ior ari , G las er’ s co nv ict ion be cam e f ina lTh is C ourt r ece ntl y d eci de d th e ca ses co ns oli dated un de r Besse r v. Wal

sh , -- - F .3 d -- --, 1 No. 05-4375, 2010 W L 1223194, 2010 U.S. App. LEX IS 6704 (2d Cir. Mar . 31, 2010), which, tho ug h re lat ed

to t he iss ue s ra ise d h ere , d oe s n ot a ff ect our an aly sis
. 3 ninety days afterthe New York Court of Appeals denied him leave to appe al, seePe op le v

. Glas er , 772 N.E.2d 612 (N.Y. 2002), that is, on August 8, 2002. See, e.g. , Valverde v. Sti nson , 224 F.3d 129, 132 (2d Cir. 2000) (di scussing when sta te criminal convic tions become final). At that ti m e, the on ly r ele vant S up rem e C ourt d eci sio ns we re Apprendiand Ring v. Arizona , 536 U. S. 58 4 (2 00 2), an d th

us tho se are the on ly ca ses that m aybe co ns ide red he re. Si nc e th is C ourt has alrea dy considered t he effect of both Ap pr en di and Ring in Brow n v . Mi lle r , 451 F. 3d at 56,
we m us t f oll owou r pr ece de nt. 1 For the foregoing re asons, the judgment of the distr ict courtis hereby AFFIRMED
. FOR THE COURT : CATHERINE O’HAGA

N W OLFE, CLE RK