Case Name: Francisco DUENAS-QUINTERO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sharon BLACKETTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-15
Citations: 384 F. App'x 564
Docket Number: No. 08-36004
Parties: Francisco DUENAS-QUINTERO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sharon BLACKETTER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 564–565

Head Matter:
Francisco DUENAS-QUINTERO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sharon BLACKETTER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-36004.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 15, 2010.
Thomas J. Hester, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Leigh Salmon, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Ap-pellee.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Oregon state prisoner Francisco Due-nas-Quintero appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Duenas-Quintero contends his trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object, at trial or contest on appeal, to judicial fact finding that led to a higher criminal history category and a higher sentence. Because the sentencing judge was permitted under Oregon law to make the findings that Duenas-Quintero complains of, counsel's failure to object did not amount to deficient performance. Therefore, the Oregon court's rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
As Duenas-Quintero acknowledges, his counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to object to factual findings used to impose consecutive sentences. See Oregon v. Ice, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 711, 714-15, 172 L.Ed.2d 517 (2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.