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 by9th 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 P A T R I C K J A M E S C A R R I Z O S A , J r ., P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. J E A N N E S . W O O D F O R D , D i r e c t orof C A D ep artm en to f C o rrect i o n s, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 56557 D. C. No . 3 : 0 5 - c v - 0 1 9 3 5 - I EG 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 S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia I rm aE . G onz a l e z , C hi e f J udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 29, 2010 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , L E A V Y , an dG R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one rP a tr i c k J a m e s C a rr i z os a , J r . , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di stri ctcourt ’ s j ud gm entdenyi ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4 h abea s pet i t i on . W e have 

# FI LED JU L 20 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSW e c e rtif yf o rap p e a l o n o u ro w n m o tio n th e is s u e s p r e s e n te din th is 1 ap p e a l. 08- 56557 2 j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 1 C arri zosacont ends thatthe S t at e’ s f ai l ure t o aw ar d h i m day- for- day se nt ence cr edi t s vi ol at ed hi s due proces s r i gh t s. H ow ever , C al . P enal C od e § 2 9 3 3 .1 lim its th e s e n te n c e c r e d its C a rr iz o s am a ye a rn th r o u g h h is p a rtic ip a tio n in th e I n m a te W o rkT r a in in g I n c e n tiv e P r o g r a m to f if te e n p e r c e n t. T h e o th e rs ta te st atu t es an d reg u l at i o n s ci t ed b y C arri zo sa d o n o tcreat e a p ro t ect ed d u e p ro cess lib e rtyin te r e s t in s e n te n c e c r e d its . See San di n v. C on ner , 515 U . S . 472, 483- 85 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ; McL ean v. Crabtre e , 1 7 3 F .3 d1 1 7 6 , 1 1 8 4 - 8 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . T o the ext entC arri zosachal l enges the st at e c ou rt ’ s app l i ca t i on of st at e l aw c onc e rni ng e qui t abl e e s t oppe l , thi s c ont e nt i on doe s nots t a t e ac ogni z abl e c l a i m of av io la tio n o f

f e d e r a l la w . See L ew is v. Jef f ers , 497 U . S . 764, 780 ( 1990) ( “[ F ]e d e r a l h ab e a s c o rp u s r e lie f d o e s n o t lie f

o re rr o r s o f

s ta te la w [ .]” ) . F urtherm ore, the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y r ej ec t ed C arri zosa ’ s gov ernm entes t op pel a r g u m e n t o n th e m e r its . F i na l l y , the di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l yr e j e c t e d C a rr i z os a ’ s e qua l pr ot e c t i on cl ai m . T h e reco rd refl ect s th atth e d o cu m en t ary ev i d en ce su b m i tt ed b y C arri zo sa d i d n o test ab l i sh th ath e w as treat ed d i fferen t l y fro m si m i l arl y si tu at ed i n d i v i d u al s.08- 56557 3 Se e McL e a n , 1 7 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 5 . T hu s, the C al i forni a c ou rt s’ re j ec t i on of C arri zosa ’ s c l ai m s w as nei ther c o n tr a ryto n o ra n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f c le a r lye s tab lis h e df

e d e r a l la w . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . M o r e o v e r , b e c au s e C a rr iz o s af a ile dto r a is e ac o lo r ab le cl ai m for r el i ef

, see P h i l l i

p s v. W o o d f o rd , 2 6 7 F .3 d9 6 6 , 9 7 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) , h is c o n te n tio n th a t h e is e n title d to a n e v id e n tia ryh e a r in g o n h is c la im s la c k s m e r it. AF F I RME D.