Case Name: Rance BOLTON, also known as Lance Moore, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mike KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-15
Citations: 225 F. App'x 487
Docket Number: No. 05-15966
Parties: Rance BOLTON, also known as Lance Moore, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Mike KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 487–487

Head Matter:
Rance BOLTON, also known as Lance Moore, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Mike KNOWLES, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-15966.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 13, 2007 .
Filed March 15, 2007.
Meredith J. Watts, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Ranee Bolton, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Niver, DAG, Peggy S. Ruffra, Esq., AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: GRABER, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ranee Bolton, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for possession of stolen property. Bolton contends that the trial court's admission into evidence of a witness's preliminary hearing testimony infringed his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation in violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).
Bolton's argument is unpersuasive. The Supreme Court recently held that the Crawford rule does not apply retroactively to cases, like this one, that are on collateral review. Whorton v. Bockting, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007). Bolton's direct review became final in 1999. Therefore, his claim is governed by the standards set forth in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56,100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). The state court's admission of the preliminary hearing testimony was neither contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See id. at 72-73, 100 S.Ct. 2531; California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149,165-68, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.