Case Name: Jason G. VAN NORMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-11
Citations: 362 F. App'x 597
Docket Number: No. 07-16678
Parties: Jason G. VAN NORMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 597–598

Head Matter:
Jason G. VAN NORMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 07-16678.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
Tara K. Allen, Esquire, Bigfork, MT, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Jason G. Van Norman, pro se.
Lacey Stover Gard, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arizona state prisoner Jason G. Van Norman appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Van Norman contends that his aggravated sentence was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment because the trial court relied on judge-found aggravating factors to sentence him above the presumptive sentencing range. Because the state trial judge relied on one permissible factor in enhancing Van Norman's sentence, the Arizona Court of Appeals' decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 643 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.