Case Name: Armster HAMPTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael S. EVANS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-25
Citations: 411 F. App'x 993
Docket Number: No. 09-16031
Parties: Armster HAMPTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael S. EVANS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 993–994

Head Matter:
Armster HAMPTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael S. EVANS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-16031.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 25, 2011.
Henry C. Su, Howrey LLP, East Palo Alto, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Tia Marie Coronado, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General (SAC), Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
California state prisoner Armster Hampton 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.
Hampton contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to accurately advise him of his maximum sentence exposure. He contends further that his counsel's failure to recommend that he accept a plea offer of eight years provided the prosecution the opportunity to amend the charges to include a previous felony.
The district court did not commit clear error when, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, it found that Hampton failed to demonstrate "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Nunes v. Mueller, 350 F.3d 1045, 1053 (9th Cir.2003) (recognizing the right to effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations). Further, the state court's rejection of this claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
As Hampton concedes, because the trial court properly relied on at least one validly found factor in imposing his upper-term sentence, he is not entitled to relief in his Cunningham claim. See Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 648-49 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.