Case Name: Robert SOLIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike KNOWLES, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-30
Citations: 328 F. App'x 422
Docket Number: No. 07-16323
Parties: Robert SOLIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Mike KNOWLES, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 422–423

Head Matter:
Robert SOLIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Mike KNOWLES, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-16323.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed June 30, 2009.
Maitreya Badami, San Francisco, CA, Robert Solis, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Pamela K Critchfield, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Peggy S. Ruffra, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Robert Solis appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.
Solis contends that his charging instrument was constitutionally defective because it failed to provide adequate notice of the charge against him. We agree with the district court that this contention lacks merit. See Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117-19, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974); Miller v. Stagner, 757 F.2d 988, 994 (9th Cir.1985); see also United States v. Hester, 719 F.2d 1041, 1043 (9th Cir.1983).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.