Case Name: Ramona HOLDERMAN, 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: 2010-03-05
Citations: 369 F. App'x 857
Docket Number: No. 07-17292
Parties: Ramona HOLDERMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO; et al., Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 857–857

Head Matter:
Ramona HOLDERMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO; et al., Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-17292.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 5, 2010.
Jacqueline Dutton, Cave Creek, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Aaron Jay Moskowitz, Esq., AGAZ-Of-fice of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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 Ramona Holder-man appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Holderman contends that her aggravated sentence violates the Sixth Amendment because the trial court relied on judge-found aggravating factors to sentence her above the presumptive sentencing range. Because the state trial judge relied on at least one permissible factor in enhancing Holderman's sentence, the Arizona Supreme Court's 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).
Holderman also contends that her due process rights were violated when the trial judge failed to give her notice that he would consider certain aggravating factors. The district court did not err in dismissing this claim as unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. See Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir.2002).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.